What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4895220 about?

The tribunal order states: Kaleena Petterson to pay Joanne Higgins $1,305.44 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4895220?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Part-Contribution: $435.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4895220?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4895220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10735357-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4895220 about?

The tribunal order states: Kaleena Petterson to pay Joanne Higgins $1,305.44 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4895220?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Part-Contribution: $435.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4895220?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4895220?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10735357-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 19 Washington Road, Washington Valley, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4895220 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4895220 — net $1,305.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$850.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Part-contribution	$435.00	Repairs: Part-contribution
Net award	$1,305.44
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,305.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 May 2024 after a vague tenant notice was served on the landlord by text on 17 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The matter was adjourned to allow the tenant to produce evidence of other payments missing from the rent summary. Evidence was provided but I could not ascertain from that any evidential substance to alter the rent summary. It is awarded per the landlord’s rent summary.

The landlord clearly had access to the premises after the tenant moved out but before the end of the rent liability period. That is discussed further below.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenant stated she intended to return and clean the premises. She pointed to a photo that shows a range of cleaning products on the kitchen bench in preparation. The tenant works nights so her daytime schedule is not typical. That did cause some conflict between the parties regarding inspections and other time sensitive arrangements.

The landlord undertook cleaning and rubbish removal. Photos show a need for this. But the photos and tasks took place before the end of the tenancy.

Essentially the landlord seeks compensation for cleaning efforts conducted during the rental period. I consider it unfair to allow that and for her to also receive rent. I have left the rent arrears in place but have declined any cleaning and rubbish removal costs as claimed ($630.00) as the landlord benefited from the early access. The set off in favour of the tenant for the early access might have been more but the clash regarding any continued access after initial tenant permission impeded that.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.

The tenant accepted the kitchen door was damaged during the tenancy. She did not accept liability for the bedroom door, claiming it was pre-existing. She also denied liability for the external gate that came off its hinges, claiming that was wear and tear.

The landlord produced a series of photos showing areas of damage. One wall was damaged by a door handle, despite a door-stop being in place. The landlord claimed significant force must have been applied to prevent the door stop functioning as intended. I agree.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amount claimed is based on one invoice for $1,234.19. I have reviewed the invoice line items, photos and considered the respective submissions. I have also considered the early commencement of repair, much as with the cleaning.

I have also taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the evidenced age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The lack of further landlord success in the claims regarding repairs reflects the insufficient entry condition evidence to overturn the tenant’s position regarding pre-existing damage. Prevention of landlord access

The landlord sought exemplary damages for the tenant preventing access for a scheduled inspection (s 48(4)(b) RTA) and harassment of neighbours (s 40(2) and (3A)(d) RTA).

The tenant did interfere with entry through the use of an internal barrier to entry but I consider intent is not established. The nocturnal pattern of work, and the desired for enhanced security, makes the tenant explanation that she was asleep after a night shift and she had not removed the internal barrier sufficiently plausible to avoid any order.

The quiet enjoyment of the neighbours more than likely was impacted by tenant behaviour. To attract exemplary damages, the behaviour must have been harassment.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person" (MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010).

Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them.

I do not consider exemplary damages should be ordered. Merits and justice

When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.

Both parties have, at times, operated outside of the requirements of the RTA and some consideration of s 85 has been applied to this application and facts. Filing fee

Because Joanne Higgins has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

I note that at the end of the hearing, while leaving the Tribunal room, the tenant appeared to make remarks directed to the landlord. Such remarks if made during the hearing would more than likely have led me to direct the Registry to follow up regarding the nature of the threats. There was no excuse for that.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4895220 — net $1,305.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$850.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Part-contribution	$435.00	Repairs: Part-contribution
Net award	$1,305.44
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,305.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord clearly had access to the premises after the tenant moved out but before the end of the rent liability period. That is discussed further below.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord undertook cleaning and rubbish removal. Photos show a need for this. But the photos and tasks took place before the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord sought exemplary damages for the tenant preventing access for a scheduled inspection (s 48(4)(b) RTA) and harassment of neighbours (s 40(2) and (3A)(d) RTA).

The quiet enjoyment of the neighbours more than likely was impacted by tenant behaviour. To attract exemplary damages, the behaviour must have been harassment.

These definitions suggest there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them.

I do not consider exemplary damages should be ordered. Merits and justice

Both parties have, at times, operated outside of the requirements of the RTA and some consideration of s 85 has been applied to this application and facts. Filing fee

Because Joanne Higgins has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4895220 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 19 Washington Road, Washington Valley,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4895220 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 19 Washington Road, Washington Valley,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions