What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920801 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4920801?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920801?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10793494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4920801 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4920801?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920801?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920801?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10793494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4920801 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 September 2024
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
This tenancy began on 30 July 2021. It ended later in 2021, although the precise date is at issue between the parties. The delay by the tenant in filing these proceedings has made it difficult for the tenant to provide the necessary proof.
The parties accept that the bond of $1,960.00 was paid to the landlord on or about 30 July 2021.
The tenant says that despite requests to the landlord, the bond has not been released to her.
The landlord says that the bond has been used to pay rent for the period of 28 days leading up to the tenant leaving the property.
The tenant says that on a date which she can no longer recall, she gave the landlord notice to terminate the tenancy by phone.
She says that the landlord subsequently refused to release the bond as rent was in arrears and the property had not been left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord evidence was that soon after the commencement of the tenancy the tenant contacted them asking to be released from the tenancy.
The landlord received a txt message from the tenant on 8 August 2024. The landlord replied that the tenant could not move out that day, as the inspection had not been carried out.
On 4 November 2024, the tenant sent a txt to the landlord recording that she needed to move out. The txt confirms that as of 4 November 2024, the tenant was still at the premises, whether she had given notice or not.
An inspection by the landlord of the premises on 26 November 2024 confirmed that the tenant had moved out.
As a matter of logic, that would suggest that the tenant moved out some time between 4 November 2024 and 26 November 2024.
The landlord rent summary discloses that the landlord has charged rent through until 19 November 2024 and that an amount equivalent to the bond has been deducted for rent for the period to 19 November 2024.
Neither party has acted in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and that has led them to the problems before the Tribunal today.
Section 19(1)(b) RTA requires the landlord to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days. That did not happen.
Notice to terminate a tenancy is to be made in writing (see s.51(3)(a) RTA). The tenant’s notice was not in writing and as a result, it is not clear when any notice was given.
The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. They must prove it to the point where I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that notice was given and that the bond used by the landlord to pay the rent arrears is in fact due to the tenant.
I am not required to consider who is telling the truth. I am required to consider what was more likely than not.
I am satisfied that the tenant was still residing at the premises as of 4 November 2024. The tenant has not persuaded me that she had given notice, nor that she had left the premises prior to 26 November 2024.The landlord has applied the bond funds to the payment of rent for the period from 16 October 2021 to 19 November 2021.
The tenant application for repayment of the bond is dismissed.
The landlord has not complied with s.19(1)(b) RTA. I can not award exemplary damages to the tenant for that failure, as any claim for exemplary damages must be made within 12 months of the event complained of. But for that delay, exemplary damages would have been awarded against the landlord.
Cora Alice Hutton claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Cora Alice Hutton considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The moisture ingress and drainage standards require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) RTA.
In this case, I have determined that the tenant has been unable to prove any breach to the civil standard required. The landlord provided a copy of a Healthy Homes report dated 1 September 2021.The report confirms that the premises comply. Due to the delay in making this application, the tenant was unable to provide any supporting evidence and the claim is accordingly dismissed.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful, and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 September 2024
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
This tenancy began on 30 July 2021. It ended later in 2021, although the precise date is at issue between the parties. The delay by the tenant in filing these proceedings has made it difficult for the tenant to provide the necessary proof.
The parties accept that the bond of $1,960.00 was paid to the landlord on or about 30 July 2021.
The tenant says that despite requests to the landlord, the bond has not been released to her.
The landlord says that the bond has been used to pay rent for the period of 28 days leading up to the tenant leaving the property.
The tenant says that on a date which she can no longer recall, she gave the landlord notice to terminate the tenancy by phone.
She says that the landlord subsequently refused to release the bond as rent was in arrears and the property had not been left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord evidence was that soon after the commencement of the tenancy the tenant contacted them asking to be released from the tenancy.
The landlord received a txt message from the tenant on 8 August 2024. The landlord replied that the tenant could not move out that day, as the inspection had not been carried out.
On 4 November 2024, the tenant sent a txt to the landlord recording that she needed to move out. The txt confirms that as of 4 November 2024, the tenant was still at the premises, whether she had given notice or not.
An inspection by the landlord of the premises on 26 November 2024 confirmed that the tenant had moved out.
As a matter of logic, that would suggest that the tenant moved out some time between 4 November 2024 and 26 November 2024.
The landlord rent summary discloses that the landlord has charged rent through until 19 November 2024 and that an amount equivalent to the bond has been deducted for rent for the period to 19 November 2024.
Neither party has acted in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and that has led them to the problems before the Tribunal today.
Section 19(1)(b) RTA requires the landlord to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 working days. That did not happen.
Notice to terminate a tenancy is to be made in writing (see s.51(3)(a) RTA). The tenant’s notice was not in writing and as a result, it is not clear when any notice was given.
The burden of proving this claim is on the tenant. They must prove it to the point where I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that notice was given and that the bond used by the landlord to pay the rent arrears is in fact due to the tenant.
I am not required to consider who is telling the truth. I am required to consider what was more likely than not.
I am satisfied that the tenant was still residing at the premises as of 4 November 2024. The tenant has not persuaded me that she had given notice, nor that she had left the premises prior to 26 November 2024.The landlord has applied the bond funds to the payment of rent for the period from 16 October 2021 to 19 November 2021.
The tenant application for repayment of the bond is dismissed.
The landlord has not complied with s.19(1)(b) RTA. I can not award exemplary damages to the tenant for that failure, as any claim for exemplary damages must be made within 12 months of the event complained of. But for that delay, exemplary damages would have been awarded against the landlord.
Cora Alice Hutton claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Cora Alice Hutton considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The moisture ingress and drainage standards require that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) RTA.
In this case, I have determined that the tenant has been unable to prove any breach to the civil standard required. The landlord provided a copy of a Healthy Homes report dated 1 September 2021.The report confirms that the premises comply. Due to the delay in making this application, the tenant was unable to provide any supporting evidence and the claim is accordingly dismissed.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful, and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920801 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920801 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions