What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4927394?

The tribunal order states: Gagan Deep Singh Sandhu to pay A1 Rentals Limited as agent for A Zou

How much money was awarded in case 4927394?

Power: $56.48 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $89.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927394?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10929492-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4927394?

The tribunal order states: Gagan Deep Singh Sandhu to pay A1 Rentals Limited as agent for A Zou

How much money was awarded in case 4927394?

Power: $56.48 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $89.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927394?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10929492-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 25 Hillcrest Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927394 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927394 — net $146.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power	$56.48	Power
Water rates	$89.82	Water rates
Net award	$146.30
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$146.30

Gagan Deep Singh Sandhu to pay A1 Rentals Limited as agent for A Zou $146.30 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3265752-018) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Rentals Limited as agent for A Zou: $146.30 Gagan Deep Singh Sandhu: $1,533.70

Reasons

Carol Smythe attended the hearing on behalf of A1 Rentals Limited who is the agent for A Zou, the landlord. Gagan Deep Singh Sandhu attended the hearing and is the tenant.

The tenant applied for a refund of the bond. The landlord filed a cross-application for rent arrears, outstanding water rates and power, and compensation following the end of the tenancy.

Each party is required to prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Rent arrears

The tenancy ended on 11 May 2024.

The rent record provided by the landlord is somewhat difficult to understand. The application form that the landlord completed stated that the rent summary uploaded by the landlord must clearly show when the rent was due, when the rent was paid or not paid, and a running total of the arrears. The rent summary provided by the landlord does not show the due date for payment of rent, only the date that payment is made by the tenant. It does not specifically show when a payment is missed. It only shows payments made by the tenant. It does not show a running record of the total arrears owed, only the number of payments allegedly missed by the tenant.

The landlord claims that the tenant missed a payment of their rent. The rent summary does not record when this payment was due or missed. It records that rent was paid on 13 August 2023 to cover the period from 11/08/2023 – 18/08/2023. It records that rent was paid on 27 August 2023 to cover the period from 18/08/2023 – 25/08/2023. It records that rent was paid on 3 September 2023 to cover the period from 25/08/2023 – 01/08/2023 and so on. The landlord has drawn an arrow in between the payments of rent made by the tenant on 13 August 2023 and 27 August 2023. The landlord claims that the tenant missed a payment of rent in between these two dates. The alleged missed payment is not individually recorded.

The landlord’s rent summary states that the total arrears owing at the end of the tenancy is $426.00. The rent was $420.00 per week. The landlord claims that the extra $6.00 showing as owing on the rent summary ($426.00 total) is because 2024 was a leap year.

The landlord’s rent summary notes that the tenant made a payment of $114.00 on 11 May 2024. This sum has not been deducted from the total arrears recorded as owing at the end of the tenancy.

An accurate and reliable rent summary is crucial in assisting landlords to establish a claim for rent arrears. If a landlord claims that a tenant has missed a payment of rent, this should be easily ascertainable from the rent summary. In this case, it is not. The rent summary does not record the missed payment. I am not able to ascertain when the alleged missed payment was due and when it was missed. The landlord is asking the Tribunal to draw an inference. The fact that the payment of $114.00 made by the tenant on 11 May 2024 has not been deducted from the total arrears recorded as owing on the rent summary also casts doubt on its reliability. In these circumstances, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant owed $426.00 in rent arrears at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed. Water rates and power

The landlord lives on the opposite side of the driveway from the tenancy address. The tenancy address does not have its own water or power account, but it does have its own water and power meters. The landlord measures the tenant’s consumption of water and power by reading these meters. The landlord receives the invoices for water and power and charges the tenant a portion of these invoices relative to the tenant’s use. The total amount charged to the tenant is recorded on a handwritten invoice provided by the landlord.

The landlord submitted a summary invoice that they had sent to the tenant listing all of the water and power bills they say the tenant owes. This summary invoice also records any payments made by the tenant. The summary invoice covers the period between 14 June 2023 and 9 May 2024. It records that a total of $267.70 remains outstanding. The landlord sought an order for this amount.

The landlord did not submit the original invoices from the water rates authority or power company for each of the bills listed on the summary invoice. The landlord also did not submit the handwritten invoices provided to the tenant for each bill listed on the summary invoice.

The landlord provided the Tribunal with original and handwritten water and power invoices for the period covering 18 April 2024 – 15 May 2024. The landlord has not proven that the tenant owed any of the bills listed on the summary invoice, other than those relating to this period. I limit my finding as to the tenant’s liability for outstanding water and power to the invoices provided by the landlord at the hearing.

The handwritten invoices submitted to the Tribunal were as follows: Water a. $52.00Due date: 26/04/2024 b. $28.36Due date: 12/05/2024 c. $9.46Due date: 15/05/2024 Total: $89.82 Power Due dateUsageFixed line charge GSTTotal 18/04/2024$43.03$37.63$12.10$80.66 18/04/2024$140.42$37.63$26.71$178.05 18/05/2024$47.36$35.28$12.40$82.64 18/05/2024$128.48$35.28$24.56$163.76 31/05/2024$18.53$14.11$4.90$32.64

The total power claimable based on the handwritten invoices provided by the landlord is $537.75.

As can be seen from the table above, the landlord charged the tenant a fixed-line charge for the use of power at the tenancy address. The landlord told the Tribunal that they charged the tenant half of the total fixed line charge, as power was supplied to the landlord’s house and the tenancy address.

Section 39 of the RTA provides that the landlord is responsible for all outgoings (including electricity costs) in respect of the premises that are incurred for common facilities. The tenant is only responsible for payment of outgoings that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or the tenant’s use of the facilities. Section 11 of the RTA states that any agreement that places greater obligations on a tenant than those provided in the Act is unenforceable.

A fixed line charge is a fee that power companies charge to cover the fixed costs of supplying power to a property. It is not exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use of the premises. It is attributable to the use of both properties (the landlord’s address and the tenancy address). Therefore, the tenant is not liable to pay the fixed-line charge (or GST on it).

I have deducted the fixed-line charge from the amounts claimed by the landlord for power as follows: Due dateUsageFixed line charge GSTTotal 18/04/2024$43.03$0$6.45$49.48 18/04/2024$140.42$0$21.06$161.48 18/05/2024$47.36$0$7.10$54.46 18/05/2024$128.48$0$19.27$147.75 31/05/2024$18.53$0$2.78$21.31

It follows that the total amount the landlord is actually able to claim from the tenant for power is $434.48.

The tenant is liable to cover the cost of water and power used at the tenancy address during 18 April 2024 – 15 May 2024. The total amount for water usage during this period was $89.82. The total amount for power usage during this period was $434.48. This brings a total of $524.30. The tenant paid the landlord $378.00 towards outgoings on 7 May 2024. Therefore, I have deducted this amount from the total, which leaves $146.30 remaining.

The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates and power is granted for $146.30.

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 landlord sought compensation of $428.95 for general cleaning. The landlord provided an invoice from Papatoetoe Property Maintenance for this amount.

The landlord provided a written property inspection report dated 12 May 2023, but no photographs. The landlord provided photographs taken at the exit inspection after the tenancy ended. These photographs are mostly close-up shots. They show small amounts of hair, dirt and grime on a section of the stove. There is only one photograph taken from a distance in the lounge/dining area marked “F6”. It is difficult to ascertain the overall state of the property form these photographs, due to the lack of photographs taken from a distance.

The tenant provided their own photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs are mostly from a distance and provide a more general impression of the overall state of the property at the end of the tenancy. The property appears free from rubbish and personal belongings. The floor looks vacuumed and other surfaces appear to have been mopped or wiped. It looks reasonably clean and tidy.

A tenant does not need to leave the property in a pristine condition, only a reasonably clean and tidy one. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the tenant left the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The landlord’s claim for compensation for general cleaning is dismissed.

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.

The landlord claimed that the tenant, or a person at the property with the tenant’s permission, kept a puppy inside the premises. The landlord stated that the puppy scratched the bottom of the bedroom door causing damage. The landlord also claimed that the puppy urinated on the carpet causing it to smell very bad.

In addition, the landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the lock on the backdoor of the property.

The landlord sought compensation for the following amounts: a. Door repair:$276.00 b. Carpet cleaning:$92.00 c. Carpet deoderising:$218.50 d. Lock repair:$115.00 Total: $701.50

The landlord provided invoices from Papatoetoe Property Maintenance for these amounts. Door repair

The landlord claimed that the tenant sublet the property to third parties whilst he was in India. She said that on more than one occasion when she was outside her property in the driveway, she heard a puppy crying from inside the tenancy address. The landlord stated that the first time she heard a puppy crying was around September/October/November 2023.

The landlord said that she completed regular inspections of the tenancy address every couple of months. Damage to the back of the bedroom door was not noted on any of these inspections. The landlord never saw a puppy at the tenancy address.

The landlord said that she only noticed the damage to the bedroom door during the final inspection. She said that she took a photograph on her phone, but this photograph has gone missing.

The tenant denied ever keeping a puppy at the address. He also denied subletting the property. He said that he returned to India for approximately one month and his friend stayed in the property whilst he was there. The tenant said that his friend did not keep a puppy at the address. The tenant said that his friend was only in New Zealand on a working visa for one year and would not have gotten a puppy in these circumstances. The tenant said that the bedroom door was not damaged.

The landlord says that the tenant kept a puppy that caused damage to the back of the bedroom door. The tenant denies this. There is no supporting evidence that the tenant kept a puppy or that damage was sustained to the bedroom door. The landlord has not convinced me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant kept a puppy or that the bedroom door was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the bedroom door is dismissed. Carpet cleaning & deoderising

The landlord stated that the carpet was badly stained with urine. She alleges that this was caused by a puppy the tenant kept. The tenant denies keeping a puppy or that the carpet smelt of urine. He says that the property was damp and mouldy, and always had a funny smell to it.

The photographs of the carpet provided by the landlord do not show any obvious urine stains, but I accept that urine stains are not always visibly apparent.

The landlord says the carpet was badly stained with urine and smelt bad. The tenant denies this. There is no objective evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the tenant kept a puppy or that the carpet smelt badly of urine. The landlord has not convinced me that, on the balance of probabilities, the carpet was damaged due to a puppy urinating on it. The landlord’s claims for compensation for carpet cleaning and deodorising are dismissed. Lock repair

The landlord claimed that the lock for the backdoor was stuffed with foreign objects and damaged. She states that the lock worked at the beginning of the tenancy, but did not work at the end.

The tenant said that the backdoor lock never worked. He states that the backdoor was able to close, but was only ever able to be locked with a latch.

The landlord provided a copy of the written pre-inspection report. No notes about the backdoor lock are made. The landlord also provided a copy of the written exit inspection report. No notes about the backdoor lock are made. The only note is that the key to the backdoor lock is missing.

The landlord did not take a photograph of the alleged damage.

The landlord states that the backdoor lock was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant denies this. In the absence of any objective evidence supporting the landlord’s claim, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the lock. The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the lock is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression

Both parties have been successful to some degree in relation to their claims. Therefore, I have made no order for either party to reimburse the other for the cost of the filing fee.

The tenant did not make an application for name suppression however, the landlord did. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I am not required to grant them name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA.

I have a residual discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This sections requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’

The landlord did not advance their application for name suppression at the hearing. I was not referred to any special circumstances why name suppression should be granted and none are apparent from the facts of this case.

I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927394 — net $146.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power	$56.48	Power
Water rates	$89.82	Water rates
Net award	$146.30
Bond	$1,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$146.30