What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4925994 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders continued tenant name suppression.

How much money was awarded in case 4925994?

Property Damage: $218.99 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $477.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $327.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4925994?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4925994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11427307-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4925994 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders continued tenant name suppression.

How much money was awarded in case 4925994?

Property Damage: $218.99 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $477.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $327.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4925994?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4925994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11427307-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Clematis Avenue, Murrays Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4925994 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4925994 — net $1,023.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$327.13	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$477.25	Rubbish removal
Curtain replacement	$218.99	Curtain replacement
Net award	$1,023.37
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,023.37

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4925994 — net $1,023.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$327.13	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$477.25	Rubbish removal
Curtain replacement	$218.99	Curtain replacement
Net award	$1,023.37
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,023.37

Order

The Tribunal orders continued tenant name suppression.
[The tenant/s] to pay Excel Property Management Limited As Agent For Jingping Sun $1,023.37 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Excel Property Management Limited As Agent For Jingping Sun: $1,023.37 [The tenant/s]: $2,376.63
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in the North Shore District Courthouse today. The tenant was assisted by an interpreter provided by the Tribunal.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 12 September 2022, and was a fixed-term tenancy until 11 March 2024, the tenancy ended that final day.
I note however, that the tenant filed a claim against the landlord, and that was the subject of an order of the Tribunal issued in September 2023. The Tribunal ordered the landlord to undertake various works at the premises in relation to heating, insulation and moisture ingress and drainage. The Tribunal accepted the premises fell below the necessary legal standard.
From that earlier hearing, it is clear that the landlord was aware that the tenancy had a range of defects and was not compliant with the Healthy Home Standards. The adjudicator records the following:
The house itself appears solid from the photographs I have seen. However, the house is dated and has not been fully maintained or upgraded to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
The current owner purchased the property in 2021 with a view to developing the site by demolishing the house and replacing it with six modern units. That plan has not eventuated, and the owner decided to rent the premises out and engaged Excel as his agent for that purpose.
The tenants visited an open home for the premises in August 2022 and were aware that the property was in poor condition: A that time, what I saw was that the carpet was dilapidated, the deck was severely decayed, large areas of paint on the exterior walls of the doors and windows fell off, there was no heating facilities in the sludge, the doors and windows were leaking everywhere, the roof was leaking rain, the curtains were moldy and rotting, aging, and no longer usable.
Ms Wang advertised the premises for rent, and she entered into a tenancy agreement with the tenants in August of 2022. The written version of the tenancy agreement states that the premises are exempt from complying with the Healthy Homes Standards because: The landlord intends to demolish or substantially rebuild the rental property and has applied for or has been granted the relevant resource or building consent.
That statement was inaccurate. In fact the owner never applied for a resource consent or a building consent. The owner got some plans and drawings made. However, the owner’s intended developed struck problems with the Environment Protection Authority due to issues with underground pipes.
Among other things the agreement also indicated that the entire premises’ underfloor insulation was “in a reasonable condition”. The agreement also recorded by way of a special term: Tenants ask to extend the Healthy Homes Standards exemption period from 12 months to 18 months and agree to not raise Healthy Homes Standards compliance issues within the 18 months period.
The tenant was aware that the premises was not in substandard condition in some respects. Therefore, he agreed to the tenancy with a weekly rent set at a level that corresponded to the house’s condition. However, after the tenants moved in, they found the premises even worse than anticipated. The tenants write: In desperation, I found the house a house inspection company and made a legal report. The result surprised us. The house inspection report said the condition of the of the house did not meet the conditions for renting at all, which seriously violated the lease regulations and seriously infringed on the interests of the lessees.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears- $1,950.00 b. Water rates- $327.13 c. Cleaning- $483.00 d. Rubbish removal- $477.25 e. Curtain replacement- $218.99

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The 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 likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 – Rent arrears

The landlord seeks rent arrears of $1,950.00, being the arrears as of 11 March 2023 the last day of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes the rent arrears claim, as the tenant disputes that the rent was correctly calculated. The tenant says there was a fixed-term tenancy of 18 months, and there is nothing mentioned in the tenancy agreement saying the landlord could put up the rent after one year.
The landlord disputes that they had agreed not to increase the rent during the tenancy. The landlord considers that given the improvements in the dwelling the rent increase was justified.
The landlord states 60 days’ notice was issued by email on 7 November 2023.
The tenant states the notice was not received.
I asked the tenant how the agreement not to increase the rent was made or recorded. The tenant said there was a verbal agreement not to increase the rent.
The landlord maintained they did not agree to not increase the rent as the tenant claims at the hearing. Analysis
Based on what I have heard from the parties, and the information on the Tribunal files, I accept what the tenant says, which is that when the premises were first rented, it was on the basis that the rent would not be increased over the 18 month tenancy.
Plainly the premises were substandard, the Tribunal has confirmed that to be the case. I accept the dwelling was not in good order, and it is clear that the premises were rented to the tenant knowing that to be the case. I consider it most likely that a term of the agreement, even if not recorded in the tenancy agreement, is that the rent would be fixed for the whole fixed term period.
A term of a contract can be oral or it can be in writing. There is no reason a party who has a written contract cannot rely on oral terms in addition to the written document.
While the RTA does allow for annual rent increases, there is no reason in law why a landlord cannot contract with the tenant on the basis that the landlord would not increase the rent, and I find it is likely to be the situation in this case.
Finding as I do that the rent increase, upon which this claim is based, was outside the terms of the contract, this rent arrears claim is dismissed. Claim 2 - Water rates
The landlord seeks an order that the tenant pay water rates to the sum of $327.13, for January, February and March 2024.
The tenant states that he has paid the water charges, but over the last month there was a burst water pipe which flooded the house. Previously the water bill has been relatively stable around $100.00.
The landlord agrees there was a water leak, but disagrees that the water bill is normally $100, says it was around $130. Analysis
At the hearing, I noted that the water charges (on consumption) for January 2024 of $141.80, and February 2024 of $160.70, which was prior to the water leak. The amount the landlord claimed in addition for March was around $25.00.
The tenant states that these payments were made, but had no evidence of those payments were produced at the hearing. This claim was well notified in advance of the hearing, and the tenant had the sufficient opportunity to present any evidence of missed payments.
I am satisfied that the landlords claims are not influenced by the water leak, the tenant has not proven he made the payments, so this claim is established and ordered in full. Claim 3 - Cleaning
The landlord seeks cleaning costs for the premises to the sum of $483.00
The tenant disputes this claim, and states that the previous order of the Tribunal should be considered, which confirmed that the condition of the tenancy was “very poor” when he moved in.
The tenant said he asked someone to come in and clean the carpet.
The tenant requested the Tribunal to review the files on the earlier claim. I confirmed I would do that, given the landlord or course is aware of that case as the respondent there. The landlords position is that those photographs do not assist, because they were taken about a year after the tenancy started. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord produced an invoice from ‘Green Acres’ for commercial cleaning on 22 March 2022, for the sum of $483.00.
I find the landlord has not established this claim. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, I consider that it is more likely than not that the premises were not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean state. Again the evidence accepted by the Tribunal already is that the premises were rented to the tenants in a legally substandard state. The landlord has not convinced me that how the premises were returned was materially different to how they were provided.
This claim has not been established. Claim 4 – Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs of $477.25.
The tenant agrees that some of the belongings outside and under the house were his. The tenant states that some of the carpet under the house he removed, because it was rotten. Beyond that there were three items outside belonging to the tenant, a washing machine, some chairs and a ‘spiral’ object as shown in the photographs. Analysis
I find this claim has been established. Again the tenant must return the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and must remove any rubbish. The tenant accepts that some rubbish, including a washing machine and furniture, were left on the premises. Those are bulky items that would have incurred costs to remove and dispose of. This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Claim 5 – Curtain replacement
The landlord states that curtains were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states that during the tenancy, the tenant said the curtains were too old, so the landlord supplied two pairs of new curtains. But those curtains were not present at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant agrees that the landlord provided new curtains during the tenancy (he thinks more than two pairs), but some sizes were not right, so they were left in the cupboard. The tenant said the original curtains were in poor condition. In short the tenant’s position is that when they left the tenancy, the curtains were left in the premises. The tenant considers that this should have been brought to his attention earlier.
The landlord states that this was raised with the tenant at the end of the tenancy, also referring to an email from July 2024. Analysis
It is agreed that curtains were provided during the tenancy. However I accept the evidence from the landlord that they were missing at the end of the tenancy. Once the tenant had vacated the premises, if there were packaged curtains left on the dwelling, that would have been obvious to the landlord. I consider it more likely than not that these curtains were not returned, so the tenant must compensate the landlord for them.
This claim is established.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Name suppression for the tenant was ordered in the earlier Tribunal decision. That name suppression is ordered to continue.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4925994 — Property damage at 4 Clematis Avenue, Murrays Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4925994 — Property damage at 4 Clematis Avenue, Murrays Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions