What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4967454 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4967454?

Advertising: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Credit Check: $89.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $360.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4967454?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4967454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11347156-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4967454 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4967454?

Advertising: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Credit Check: $89.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $360.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4967454?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4967454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11347156-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Waterloo Road, Milford, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4967454 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4967454 — net $748.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears ( per week shortfall for 12 weeks	$360.00	Rent arrears ( per week shortfall for 12 weeks
Advertising	$299.00	Advertising
Credit check	$89.00	Credit check
Net award	$748.00
Bond	$3,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$748.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $748.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $748.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,152.00
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for a rent shortfall of $2,700.00 for the fixed term tenancy, the listing fee of $299.00, credit check of $89.00, cleaning of $241.50, garden work of $180.00 and deck cleaning of $184.00.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond.
The tenancy began on 22 April 2023 and was for a fixed term ending on 20 April 2024. A further fixed term contract was signed for the period from 20 April 2024 until 18 April 2026. The second contract was signed in February 2024 as the landlord was travelling when the first contract was due to end.
The rent increased from $975.00 per week to $1,010.00 with the second contract. Rent shortfall
In June 2024 the tenant advised the landlord that she may have to move because she had been unsuccessful with finding work on the North Shore and was looking throughout the Auckland area.
On 1 July 2024 the tenant advised the landlord that she had found work in West Auckland and the landlord began advertising for a new tenant. In addition, the tenant said she would assist with advertising for a new tenant.
After one day the landlord had only one person express interest to view the tenancy. She said that this was less than she expected. The landlord considered reducing the rent for the tenancy on the basis that the tenant would pay the difference until the end of the fixed term.
The landlord secured a new tenant for a lesser weekly rent of $980.00 even though the advertisement remained at $1010.00. The new tenancy began on 28 July 2024.
The landlord is seeking that the tenant pay the weekly shortfall of $30.00 for the 90-week period until 20 April 2026, being the end of the fixed term.
The landlord said that the tenant agreed to pay this amount. There was communication between the parties on Weechat where the tenant said on 8 July 2024 that she would pay the rent difference.
The issue is whether it is reasonable for the tenant to be responsible for a shortfall of the rent for a further 90 weeks after the tenancy ended. Even though the tenant agreed to pay the shortfall she said at the hearing that if she didn’t agree she thought that the landlord would not agree to the tenancy ending. The tenant was not aware that she could apply to the Tribunal to end the fixed term tenancy early due to a change of circumstance (section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Under section 66(2) it states that where a fixed term tenancy is reduced the Tribunal may award reasonable compensation for any loss or damage. I do not consider that it is reasonable for the tenant to pay a rent shortfall for 90 weeks. Instead, I have awarded 12 weeks at $30.00 per week.
The landlord has applied for other expenses (advertising and credit check) related to ending the fixed term tenancy early. Those claims are awarded. Garden
The landlord claimed for garden work that she said was necessary at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord was provided with an opportunity to submit supporting photographs following the end of the hearing. The photographs show that a hedge needed to be pruned and was pruned.
The landlord did not submit an invoice for this work and instead produced communication with a friend who quoted $180.00 for the garden work.
The trimming of large hedges is a maintenance job for the landlord. I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for any of the garden work carried out. The landlord’s claim in relation to garden work is dismissed. Deck
The landlord claimed for deck cleaning. The cleaning involved a water blaster. This is maintenance work that is the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord’s claim for deck cleaning is dismissed. Cleaning
The landlord claimed for cleaning the interior of the premises.
Despite the landlord being given an opportunity to produce photographs to prove that the cleaning was necessary (ie. That the property was less than reasonably clean and tidy) no photographs were produced. Instead, the landlord submitted email communication with the cleaner where it states that the house was in poor condition.
At the hearing the tenant produced some photographs taken from toward the end of the tenancy. It showed a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Due to a lack of evidence, I am not satisfied that the cleaning was necessary. The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The bond is released to the tenant after deducting the award for the landlord set out above.
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of the parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4967454 — net $748.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears ( per week shortfall for 12 weeks	$360.00	Rent arrears ( per week shortfall for 12 weeks
Advertising	$299.00	Advertising
Credit check	$89.00	Credit check
Net award	$748.00
Bond	$3,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$748.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $748.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $748.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,152.00
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for a rent shortfall of $2,700.00 for the fixed term tenancy, the listing fee of $299.00, credit check of $89.00, cleaning of $241.50, garden work of $180.00 and deck cleaning of $184.00.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond.
The tenancy began on 22 April 2023 and was for a fixed term ending on 20 April 2024. A further fixed term contract was signed for the period from 20 April 2024 until 18 April 2026. The second contract was signed in February 2024 as the landlord was travelling when the first contract was due to end.
The rent increased from $975.00 per week to $1,010.00 with the second contract. Rent shortfall
In June 2024 the tenant advised the landlord that she may have to move because she had been unsuccessful with finding work on the North Shore and was looking throughout the Auckland area.
On 1 July 2024 the tenant advised the landlord that she had found work in West Auckland and the landlord began advertising for a new tenant. In addition, the tenant said she would assist with advertising for a new tenant.
After one day the landlord had only one person express interest to view the tenancy. She said that this was less than she expected. The landlord considered reducing the rent for the tenancy on the basis that the tenant would pay the difference until the end of the fixed term.
The landlord secured a new tenant for a lesser weekly rent of $980.00 even though the advertisement remained at $1010.00. The new tenancy began on 28 July 2024.
The landlord is seeking that the tenant pay the weekly shortfall of $30.00 for the 90-week period until 20 April 2026, being the end of the fixed term.
The landlord said that the tenant agreed to pay this amount. There was communication between the parties on Weechat where the tenant said on 8 July 2024 that she would pay the rent difference.
The issue is whether it is reasonable for the tenant to be responsible for a shortfall of the rent for a further 90 weeks after the tenancy ended. Even though the tenant agreed to pay the shortfall she said at the hearing that if she didn’t agree she thought that the landlord would not agree to the tenancy ending. The tenant was not aware that she could apply to the Tribunal to end the fixed term tenancy early due to a change of circumstance (section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Under section 66(2) it states that where a fixed term tenancy is reduced the Tribunal may award reasonable compensation for any loss or damage. I do not consider that it is reasonable for the tenant to pay a rent shortfall for 90 weeks. Instead, I have awarded 12 weeks at $30.00 per week.
The landlord has applied for other expenses (advertising and credit check) related to ending the fixed term tenancy early. Those claims are awarded. Garden
The landlord claimed for garden work that she said was necessary at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord was provided with an opportunity to submit supporting photographs following the end of the hearing. The photographs show that a hedge needed to be pruned and was pruned.
The landlord did not submit an invoice for this work and instead produced communication with a friend who quoted $180.00 for the garden work.
The trimming of large hedges is a maintenance job for the landlord. I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for any of the garden work carried out. The landlord’s claim in relation to garden work is dismissed. Deck
The landlord claimed for deck cleaning. The cleaning involved a water blaster. This is maintenance work that is the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord’s claim for deck cleaning is dismissed. Cleaning
The landlord claimed for cleaning the interior of the premises.
Despite the landlord being given an opportunity to produce photographs to prove that the cleaning was necessary (ie. That the property was less than reasonably clean and tidy) no photographs were produced. Instead, the landlord submitted email communication with the cleaner where it states that the house was in poor condition.
At the hearing the tenant produced some photographs taken from toward the end of the tenancy. It showed a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Due to a lack of evidence, I am not satisfied that the cleaning was necessary. The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The bond is released to the tenant after deducting the award for the landlord set out above.
As both parties have had some success with their applications I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4967454 — Rent arrears at 25 Waterloo Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4967454 — Rent arrears at 25 Waterloo Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions