What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4935074?

The tribunal order states: This order amends and corrects the Tribunal’s money order for rent arrears and

How much money was awarded in case 4935074?

Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $606.63 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,617.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935074?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10863339-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4935074?

The tribunal order states: This order amends and corrects the Tribunal’s money order for rent arrears and

How much money was awarded in case 4935074?

Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $606.63 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,617.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935074?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935074?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10863339-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

135 Grahams Road, Burnside, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4935074 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4935074 — net $5,084.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,617.14	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$644.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$210.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$460.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$280.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$606.63	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,084.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,084.77

Order

This order amends and corrects the Tribunal’s money order for rent arrears and compensation dated 3 September 2024.
Kylie Shannon must pay Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Bigley And Emma Ling $5,084.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 (6453704-007) to Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Bigley And Emma Ling immediately.
The tenant’s application for $4,000.00 compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

On 3 September 2024 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears and compensation. The Tribunal made an error by calculating the rent arrears based on the wrong rent summary. This order corrects the error.
Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Clark attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed for damages for landlord breaches. Background
The tenancy agreement was for a fixed term ending on 6 July 2024.
Three months prior to this date the landlord sent through a new fixed term tenancy agreement together with a rent increase notice (from $440.00 to $520.00 if the new fixed term was to be accepted). The tenant did not respond to this except to ask that it be resent so that she could provide a copy to WINZ (in mid-April).
It became clear later in April that the tenant wanted to leave the property. The landlord offered a break lease arrangement which was not taken up by the tenant.
The landlord then offered the tenant the opportunity to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy (effectively agreeing that the tenancy could revert to a periodic tenancy for the purposes of bringing it to an end) if the tenant wished to do so.
Following further email enquiry from the landlord, the tenant purported to give notice on 27 May 2024 that she would leave the property on 7 June 2024.
As this was considerably less than the offered 28 days’ notice, the tenant did not comply with the terms of the proposed arrangement and therefore, the landlord did not accept the notice and advised the tenant that she would be liable for rent until the end of the fixed term.
The tenant responded by referring to alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes standards in relation to the tenancy. This was the last email the tenant sent to the landlord. The landlord replied saying she would inspect the property on 6 June, and she would answer any queries the tenant had at that time.
The landlord also posted the tenant the company’s usual end of tenancy information pack in the mail on 28 May. This confirmed that the rent was payable to 6 July and provided other general information about the end of a tenancy and what was inspected of a tenant.
The tenant gave evidence that she physically moved out of the property around this date although she acknowledged that she was unable to remove many of her possessions.
The landlord visited the property on the 6 June for the property inspection. The property was full of the tenant’s possessions and the landlord let the tenant know she would come back to reinspect on 11 June.
Again, the property was full of possessions and untidy and the landlord was unable to conduct an inspection. The landlord issued a 14 day notice to have the tenant attend to the removal of cleaning and gardening at the property.
The landlord was still willing to let the tenant end the tenancy early, but the property was in no condition to be shown to prospective tenants.
The possessions remaining at the property included large quantities of food, personal belongings, medication, full wardrobes of clothing, electrical appliances, toys, gym equipment and other items that it would be expected a tenant would wish to take with them. Some of these items were collected over the period after the 7 June.
The landlord continued to try to contact the tenant to determine what her plan was for removal of her belongings from the property. The tenant did not respond but it was clear to the landlord that she continued to return to the property to get possessions from time to time.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord has claimed rent arrears to the date the property was relet, being 28 August 2024 ($5,074.29).
Rent was paid up to and including 13 June 2024. At this time the landlord was still trying to contact the tenant to have her confirm what was happening with the tenancy and all the remaining possessions.
A 14-day notice was issued for rent arrears on 13 June as one payment had been missed by that date.
On 19 June the landlord sent one of many emails asking the tenant to, “[p]lease reply and tell me what is happening.”
The landlord emailed on other occasions including on 24 June reminding the tenant that her agreement expired on 6 July, and she had to empty the property by then. The landlord also advised the rent owing to the end of the fixed term.
This one-sided communication continued with the landlord making periodic visits to the property to see if any progress had been made on removal of possessions or cleaning up.
On 27 June the landlord emailed the tenant saying, “you need to contact me urgently”. There was no reply.
Other attempts to contact the tenant were also met with silence. An email sent on 3 July outlined the expenses that the tenant may be liable for if she did not remove her possessions and clean the property prior to the tenancy expiry date.
On 9 July (three days after the fixed term tenancy end date) the landlord emailed the tenant to say there were still a number of possessions at the property and advising the tenant that the landlord intended hiring a skip to dispose of anything left at the property. The tenant was asked to take whatever remaining possessions she may wish to keep and was advised of the likely costs if nothing further was done.
On 16 July the property was entered by unknown people, and damage was done when there was an attempt to steal the hot water cylinder and water was left running at the property (an insurance claim was made for this damage).
Multiple items were also removed from the skip that had been loaded with the tenants remaining possessions. Police were involved at this time it was decided that the locks needed to be changed to ensure the security of the property.
Given the lack of communication and the large number of items still at the property, the landlord waited a very reasonable time before changing the locks and taking back possession of the property. The tenant was fully aware that the landlord did not know what her intentions were.
She continued to go to the property to slowly remove her possessions and the landlord gave evidence that she would leave food wrappers at the property and the lights on.
I consider that the tenant was liable for rent until the end of the fixed term when the tenancy reverted to a periodic tenancy.
From that time, the tenant was able to give 28 days’ notice to leave the property. The earliest the tenant was able to legally absolve herself of responsibility for the rent (having not left at the end of the fixed term) was 28 days following the end of the fixed term tenancy.
I consider that the tenancy ended on 3 August 2024 being 28 days after the end of the fixed term.
The rent was $480.00 until 6 July 2024 and $520.00 thereafter pursuant to the landlord’s rent increase notice.
The amount of ret due is $4,617.14.
The amount ordered is proved.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant had initially left the property with most food still in cupboards and wardrobes full of clothes. It was difficult to determine from the photos if the tenant had actually moved out.
Over time the number of possessions was reduced but it was some time before the landlord could be sure that the tenant did actually intend to move and that the remaining items were abandoned.
The landlord provided photographs and invoices to support its claim for rubbish removal.
The tenant claimed to have had a cleaner for two hours each week so considered that the property was clean when she left.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to support its claim for cleaning.
The tenant also had garden help and thought the gardens did not need to much attention at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice and photographs to support its claim for garden work.
Not long after the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant had asked if she could have a cat at the property. The landlord had agreed on the basis that she would have the carpets professionally cleaned when she left. The tenant agreed to this.
The tenant acknowledged that she had left many possessions at the property but said she had been dealing with multiple issues including disabled children and had not turned her mind to who would dispose of these items or to the fact that the landlord did not know what her intentions were or if she had actually moved out for quite some time.
She acknowledged that the landlord could not rent the property to anyone else when it was full of her possessions.
She acknowledged that the landlord had tried to get hold of her and that she had not responded to emails since late May.
After the damage caused to the property in mid-July, the landlord had the locks changed. The tenant acknowledged that she had not returned any keys.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant cross application
The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant made a cross application claiming that the property did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and that the landlord had not attended to repairs in a timely manner.
The tenant produced a number of documents and photographs to support her claim.
She had emailed the landlord on more than one occasion to ask for additional heating in the large double height stairwell hallway area.
She had (on two occasions) had a third-party support agency contact the landlord on her behalf suggesting improvements that could be made to the property to make it warmer and compliant with HHS.
The landlord gave evidence that she had replied to these queries enclosing the healthy homes assessment and certificate which showed that the property complied with the requirements. She had heard nothing further.
These documents were also provided to the Tribunal.
The tenant also gave evidence and had supporting documentation and photographs in relation to claims that repairs were not made to the property in a timely manner. These related particularly to a shower repair (for which the tenant had issued a 14-day notice) and an ant infestation.
The landlord gave evidence that the owner had arranged the shower repair and that when the notice had been received, a repair arrangement was already in place and had been communicated to the tenant.
The tenant said she was not satisfied by the repair method, but she had not communicated this to the landlord at the time and the repair was completed within the required 14 days.
The tenant sent a number of emails to the landlord in relation to an ongoing ant infestation. The landlord made various recommendations for products the tenant could use but the tenant was unable to resolve the issue.
No 14-day notice was provided to the Tribunal in relation to this event, but the landlord had eventually sent someone around to deal with the issue. This was some months after the issue had been raised by the tenant.
The tenant mentioned a number of other items at the property which she considered below a reasonable standard of repair. There is insufficient evidence that these matters were brought to the landlord’s attention during the term of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that many issues were being raised for the first time only after the tenancy ended.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the HHS.
The tenant has not satisfied me that the landlord has breached the obligation to maintain the home in a reasonable state of repair for its age and expected life span.
The home is an older home which has not had earthquake repairs carried out.
While it is clear that there are a number of issues in the property in terms of gaps under internal doors, cracks and general wear to be expected in an older home, the evidence before the Tribunal shows that the property does comply with the HHS and many if the matters raised were not brought to the landlord’s attention during the tenancy.
No damages can therefore follow, and the tenant’s cross application claim is dismissed.
As Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Bigley And Emma Ling has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4935074 — net $5,084.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,617.14	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$644.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$210.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$460.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$280.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$606.63	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,084.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,084.77

Order

This order amends and corrects the Tribunal’s money order for rent arrears and compensation dated 3 September 2024.
Kylie Shannon must pay Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Bigley And Emma Ling $5,084.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 (6453704-007) to Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Bigley And Emma Ling immediately.
The tenant’s application for $4,000.00 compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

On 3 September 2024 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears and compensation. The Tribunal made an error by calculating the rent arrears based on the wrong rent summary. This order corrects the error.
Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Clark attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed for damages for landlord breaches. Background
The tenancy agreement was for a fixed term ending on 6 July 2024.
Three months prior to this date the landlord sent through a new fixed term tenancy agreement together with a rent increase notice (from $440.00 to $520.00 if the new fixed term was to be accepted). The tenant did not respond to this except to ask that it be resent so that she could provide a copy to WINZ (in mid-April).
It became clear later in April that the tenant wanted to leave the property. The landlord offered a break lease arrangement which was not taken up by the tenant.
The landlord then offered the tenant the opportunity to give 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy (effectively agreeing that the tenancy could revert to a periodic tenancy for the purposes of bringing it to an end) if the tenant wished to do so.
Following further email enquiry from the landlord, the tenant purported to give notice on 27 May 2024 that she would leave the property on 7 June 2024.
As this was considerably less than the offered 28 days’ notice, the tenant did not comply with the terms of the proposed arrangement and therefore, the landlord did not accept the notice and advised the tenant that she would be liable for rent until the end of the fixed term.
The tenant responded by referring to alleged breaches of the Healthy Homes standards in relation to the tenancy. This was the last email the tenant sent to the landlord. The landlord replied saying she would inspect the property on 6 June, and she would answer any queries the tenant had at that time.
The landlord also posted the tenant the company’s usual end of tenancy information pack in the mail on 28 May. This confirmed that the rent was payable to 6 July and provided other general information about the end of a tenancy and what was inspected of a tenant.
The tenant gave evidence that she physically moved out of the property around this date although she acknowledged that she was unable to remove many of her possessions.
The landlord visited the property on the 6 June for the property inspection. The property was full of the tenant’s possessions and the landlord let the tenant know she would come back to reinspect on 11 June.
Again, the property was full of possessions and untidy and the landlord was unable to conduct an inspection. The landlord issued a 14 day notice to have the tenant attend to the removal of cleaning and gardening at the property.
The landlord was still willing to let the tenant end the tenancy early, but the property was in no condition to be shown to prospective tenants.
The possessions remaining at the property included large quantities of food, personal belongings, medication, full wardrobes of clothing, electrical appliances, toys, gym equipment and other items that it would be expected a tenant would wish to take with them. Some of these items were collected over the period after the 7 June.
The landlord continued to try to contact the tenant to determine what her plan was for removal of her belongings from the property. The tenant did not respond but it was clear to the landlord that she continued to return to the property to get possessions from time to time.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord has claimed rent arrears to the date the property was relet, being 28 August 2024 ($5,074.29).
Rent was paid up to and including 13 June 2024. At this time the landlord was still trying to contact the tenant to have her confirm what was happening with the tenancy and all the remaining possessions.
A 14-day notice was issued for rent arrears on 13 June as one payment had been missed by that date.
On 19 June the landlord sent one of many emails asking the tenant to, “[p]lease reply and tell me what is happening.”
The landlord emailed on other occasions including on 24 June reminding the tenant that her agreement expired on 6 July, and she had to empty the property by then. The landlord also advised the rent owing to the end of the fixed term.
This one-sided communication continued with the landlord making periodic visits to the property to see if any progress had been made on removal of possessions or cleaning up.
On 27 June the landlord emailed the tenant saying, “you need to contact me urgently”. There was no reply.
Other attempts to contact the tenant were also met with silence. An email sent on 3 July outlined the expenses that the tenant may be liable for if she did not remove her possessions and clean the property prior to the tenancy expiry date.
On 9 July (three days after the fixed term tenancy end date) the landlord emailed the tenant to say there were still a number of possessions at the property and advising the tenant that the landlord intended hiring a skip to dispose of anything left at the property. The tenant was asked to take whatever remaining possessions she may wish to keep and was advised of the likely costs if nothing further was done.
On 16 July the property was entered by unknown people, and damage was done when there was an attempt to steal the hot water cylinder and water was left running at the property (an insurance claim was made for this damage).
Multiple items were also removed from the skip that had been loaded with the tenants remaining possessions. Police were involved at this time it was decided that the locks needed to be changed to ensure the security of the property.
Given the lack of communication and the large number of items still at the property, the landlord waited a very reasonable time before changing the locks and taking back possession of the property. The tenant was fully aware that the landlord did not know what her intentions were.
She continued to go to the property to slowly remove her possessions and the landlord gave evidence that she would leave food wrappers at the property and the lights on.
I consider that the tenant was liable for rent until the end of the fixed term when the tenancy reverted to a periodic tenancy.
From that time, the tenant was able to give 28 days’ notice to leave the property. The earliest the tenant was able to legally absolve herself of responsibility for the rent (having not left at the end of the fixed term) was 28 days following the end of the fixed term tenancy.
I consider that the tenancy ended on 3 August 2024 being 28 days after the end of the fixed term.
The rent was $480.00 until 6 July 2024 and $520.00 thereafter pursuant to the landlord’s rent increase notice.
The amount of ret due is $4,617.14.
The amount ordered is proved.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant had initially left the property with most food still in cupboards and wardrobes full of clothes. It was difficult to determine from the photos if the tenant had actually moved out.
Over time the number of possessions was reduced but it was some time before the landlord could be sure that the tenant did actually intend to move and that the remaining items were abandoned.
The landlord provided photographs and invoices to support its claim for rubbish removal.
The tenant claimed to have had a cleaner for two hours each week so considered that the property was clean when she left.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to support its claim for cleaning.
The tenant also had garden help and thought the gardens did not need to much attention at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an invoice and photographs to support its claim for garden work.
Not long after the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant had asked if she could have a cat at the property. The landlord had agreed on the basis that she would have the carpets professionally cleaned when she left. The tenant agreed to this.
The tenant acknowledged that she had left many possessions at the property but said she had been dealing with multiple issues including disabled children and had not turned her mind to who would dispose of these items or to the fact that the landlord did not know what her intentions were or if she had actually moved out for quite some time.
She acknowledged that the landlord could not rent the property to anyone else when it was full of her possessions.
She acknowledged that the landlord had tried to get hold of her and that she had not responded to emails since late May.
After the damage caused to the property in mid-July, the landlord had the locks changed. The tenant acknowledged that she had not returned any keys.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant cross application
The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant made a cross application claiming that the property did not meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) and that the landlord had not attended to repairs in a timely manner.
The tenant produced a number of documents and photographs to support her claim.
She had emailed the landlord on more than one occasion to ask for additional heating in the large double height stairwell hallway area.
She had (on two occasions) had a third-party support agency contact the landlord on her behalf suggesting improvements that could be made to the property to make it warmer and compliant with HHS.
The landlord gave evidence that she had replied to these queries enclosing the healthy homes assessment and certificate which showed that the property complied with the requirements. She had heard nothing further.
These documents were also provided to the Tribunal.
The tenant also gave evidence and had supporting documentation and photographs in relation to claims that repairs were not made to the property in a timely manner. These related particularly to a shower repair (for which the tenant had issued a 14-day notice) and an ant infestation.
The landlord gave evidence that the owner had arranged the shower repair and that when the notice had been received, a repair arrangement was already in place and had been communicated to the tenant.
The tenant said she was not satisfied by the repair method, but she had not communicated this to the landlord at the time and the repair was completed within the required 14 days.
The tenant sent a number of emails to the landlord in relation to an ongoing ant infestation. The landlord made various recommendations for products the tenant could use but the tenant was unable to resolve the issue.
No 14-day notice was provided to the Tribunal in relation to this event, but the landlord had eventually sent someone around to deal with the issue. This was some months after the issue had been raised by the tenant.
The tenant mentioned a number of other items at the property which she considered below a reasonable standard of repair. There is insufficient evidence that these matters were brought to the landlord’s attention during the term of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that many issues were being raised for the first time only after the tenancy ended.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the HHS.
The tenant has not satisfied me that the landlord has breached the obligation to maintain the home in a reasonable state of repair for its age and expected life span.
The home is an older home which has not had earthquake repairs carried out.
While it is clear that there are a number of issues in the property in terms of gaps under internal doors, cracks and general wear to be expected in an older home, the evidence before the Tribunal shows that the property does comply with the HHS and many if the matters raised were not brought to the landlord’s attention during the tenancy.
No damages can therefore follow, and the tenant’s cross application claim is dismissed.
As Holmwood Property Management Sherborne Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Bigley And Emma Ling has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935074 — Rent arrears at 135 Grahams Road, Burnside, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935074 — Rent arrears at 135 Grahams Road, Burnside, Christchurch 8053

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?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions