What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4927378?

The tribunal order states: Jordan Samina Ellish must pay Simpson Family Trust Trustees:Simpson

How much money was awarded in case 4927378?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Internal Access Key: $12.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $29.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Remote: $89.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,531.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927378?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927378?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10775023-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4927378?

The tribunal order states: Jordan Samina Ellish must pay Simpson Family Trust Trustees:Simpson

How much money was awarded in case 4927378?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Internal Access Key: $12.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $29.05 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Remote: $89.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,531.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927378?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927378?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10775023-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Manuka Street, Miramar, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927378 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927378 — net $4,402.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 May 2024	$3,531.71	Rent arrears to 10 May 2024
Lock/key replacement	$140.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$260.00	Repairs
Remote	$89.00	Remote
Carpet Cleaning	$160.00	Carpet Cleaning
Internal access key	$12.00	Internal access key
Carpet Cleaning	$160.00	Carpet Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$29.05	Light bulbs/batteries
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,402.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,402.20

Order

Jordan Samina Ellish must pay Simpson Family Trust Trustees:Simpson Trustees 2008 Limited (Director: Miranda Patrick) $4,402.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

A fixed term tenancy was signed between the applicant landlord, the respondent tenant, and two other tenants, in May 2023.
In March 2024 the two other tenants gave notice and were removed from the tenancy agreement. The remaining respondent tenant (the “tenant”) then began negotiating with the applicant landlord (the “landlord”) a new tenancy agreement.
Different co-tenants were considered but there was difficulty in getting agreement from all prospective tenants, and in the end, no new tenancy agreement was signed by all parties.
At one point an email was sent by the landlord advising the tenant that her tenancy was ending on 17 April 2024 Both parties agree that this was in the context of the proposed tenancy agreement coming into effect. The context of that particular email means that no termination notice had been given by the landlord, and none had been understood to have been given, by the tenant.
The tenant claims that because a new tenancy agreement was being negotiated but hadn’t been finalised or signed, no tenancy agreement was in existence. The tenant suggests that because no tenancy agreement was in existence, she wasn’t required to give 28 days notice to terminate the tenancy as is required from a tenant to end a periodic tenancy under the RTA. I determine this is incorrect in law.
Under section 60A of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “Act”) a fixed term tenancy agreement of more than 90 days continues as a periodic tenancy unless the parties agree to not continue with the tenancy, agree to renew the fixed term agreement, the tenant gives at least 28 days notice to terminate the tenancy or the landlord gives lawful notice to end the tenancy under section 50(1) of the RTA.
Neither party did any of the above, meaning that following the expiry of the fixed term tenancy, the tenancy continued as a periodic tenancy under the same conditions as the fixed term tenancy. The parties were open to negotiate a new fixed term tenancy, but failing that coming into effect, the periodic tenancy still existed.
On 14 April 2024 the tenant gave notice to “leave”, in effect to terminate the tenancy. A 28 day notice period ends on 12 May 2024. Rent was paid up until 17 April 2024. The landlord began advertising for a new tenant immediately and a new tenant took possession from 10 May 2024. The landlord is seeking unpaid rent from 18 April 2024 until 10 May 2024 which amounts to $3,531.71. This amount is proved.
The landlord is seeking $575.00 for reletting fees. There is no provision of the RTA which allows a landlord to recover reletting fees from an outgoing tenant at the end of a periodic tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy except for two small stains to the carpet which she does not dispute.
The tenant did not return one internal access key which she does not dispute.
The landlord had to replace some light bulbs and a remote. These items are not disputed by the tenant.
Invoices were provided in support of oral evidence.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also sought cleaning costs for blinds. The tenant disputed this cost and stated all the curtains and blinds were dirty and grimy at the beginning of the tenancy. Photographs provided by the landlord were inconclusive. This claim is not proved.

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
At the end of the tenancy a lock was damaged to some exterior doors. The landlord provided an invoice for $140.00 for repairs. The tenant accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy but stated she didn’t know how it occurred. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
At the end of the tenancy a kitchen benchtop was chipped. The landlord provided an invoice for $260.00 to repair the chip. The tenant accepted the chip was not there at the beginning of the tenancy but had no recollection of it happening. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also made a claim for some scratches and a small dent to a red wall. The landlord provided a quotation for $564.80 to fill and paint the dent and scratches. The tenant did not use the room involved and knows nothing of the scratches. The damage is minimal and hasn’t been fixed by the landlord. I consider it to be wear and tear. The claim is not proved.
The landlord also made a claim for scratches around the grab-handles on a kitchen cabinet. She provided a quote for $243.40 for the repairs. Again I consider the damage to be minimal and it hasn’t yet been repaired. I consider the damage wear and tear. The claim is not proved.
Because Simpson Family Trust Trustees:Simpson Trustees 2008 Limited (Director: Miranda Patrick) has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927378 — net $4,402.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 May 2024	$3,531.71	Rent arrears to 10 May 2024
Lock/key replacement	$140.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$260.00	Repairs
Remote	$89.00	Remote
Carpet Cleaning	$160.00	Carpet Cleaning
Internal access key	$12.00	Internal access key
Carpet Cleaning	$160.00	Carpet Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$29.05	Light bulbs/batteries
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,402.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,402.20

Order

Jordan Samina Ellish must pay Simpson Family Trust Trustees:Simpson Trustees 2008 Limited (Director: Miranda Patrick) $4,402.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

A fixed term tenancy was signed between the applicant landlord, the respondent tenant, and two other tenants, in May 2023.
In March 2024 the two other tenants gave notice and were removed from the tenancy agreement. The remaining respondent tenant (the “tenant”) then began negotiating with the applicant landlord (the “landlord”) a new tenancy agreement.
Different co-tenants were considered but there was difficulty in getting agreement from all prospective tenants, and in the end, no new tenancy agreement was signed by all parties.
At one point an email was sent by the landlord advising the tenant that her tenancy was ending on 17 April 2024 Both parties agree that this was in the context of the proposed tenancy agreement coming into effect. The context of that particular email means that no termination notice had been given by the landlord, and none had been understood to have been given, by the tenant.
The tenant claims that because a new tenancy agreement was being negotiated but hadn’t been finalised or signed, no tenancy agreement was in existence. The tenant suggests that because no tenancy agreement was in existence, she wasn’t required to give 28 days notice to terminate the tenancy as is required from a tenant to end a periodic tenancy under the RTA. I determine this is incorrect in law.
Under section 60A of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “Act”) a fixed term tenancy agreement of more than 90 days continues as a periodic tenancy unless the parties agree to not continue with the tenancy, agree to renew the fixed term agreement, the tenant gives at least 28 days notice to terminate the tenancy or the landlord gives lawful notice to end the tenancy under section 50(1) of the RTA.
Neither party did any of the above, meaning that following the expiry of the fixed term tenancy, the tenancy continued as a periodic tenancy under the same conditions as the fixed term tenancy. The parties were open to negotiate a new fixed term tenancy, but failing that coming into effect, the periodic tenancy still existed.
On 14 April 2024 the tenant gave notice to “leave”, in effect to terminate the tenancy. A 28 day notice period ends on 12 May 2024. Rent was paid up until 17 April 2024. The landlord began advertising for a new tenant immediately and a new tenant took possession from 10 May 2024. The landlord is seeking unpaid rent from 18 April 2024 until 10 May 2024 which amounts to $3,531.71. This amount is proved.
The landlord is seeking $575.00 for reletting fees. There is no provision of the RTA which allows a landlord to recover reletting fees from an outgoing tenant at the end of a periodic tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy except for two small stains to the carpet which she does not dispute.
The tenant did not return one internal access key which she does not dispute.
The landlord had to replace some light bulbs and a remote. These items are not disputed by the tenant.
Invoices were provided in support of oral evidence.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also sought cleaning costs for blinds. The tenant disputed this cost and stated all the curtains and blinds were dirty and grimy at the beginning of the tenancy. Photographs provided by the landlord were inconclusive. This claim is not proved.

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
At the end of the tenancy a lock was damaged to some exterior doors. The landlord provided an invoice for $140.00 for repairs. The tenant accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy but stated she didn’t know how it occurred. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
At the end of the tenancy a kitchen benchtop was chipped. The landlord provided an invoice for $260.00 to repair the chip. The tenant accepted the chip was not there at the beginning of the tenancy but had no recollection of it happening. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also made a claim for some scratches and a small dent to a red wall. The landlord provided a quotation for $564.80 to fill and paint the dent and scratches. The tenant did not use the room involved and knows nothing of the scratches. The damage is minimal and hasn’t been fixed by the landlord. I consider it to be wear and tear. The claim is not proved.
The landlord also made a claim for scratches around the grab-handles on a kitchen cabinet. She provided a quote for $243.40 for the repairs. Again I consider the damage to be minimal and it hasn’t yet been repaired. I consider the damage wear and tear. The claim is not proved.
Because Simpson Family Trust Trustees:Simpson Trustees 2008 Limited (Director: Miranda Patrick) has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927378 — Rent arrears at 22 Manuka Street, Miramar, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927378 — Rent arrears at 22 Manuka Street, Miramar, Wellington 6022

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions