What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4987229?

The tribunal order states: Lucky Nyoni and Olivia Mutosvori to pay Clear Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4987229?

Compensation: Electrical Issues: $675.60 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Waste Disposal: $270.28 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4987229 D…: $1,894.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,230.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4987229?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4987229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11386703-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4987229?

The tribunal order states: Lucky Nyoni and Olivia Mutosvori to pay Clear Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4987229?

Compensation: Electrical Issues: $675.60 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Waste Disposal: $270.28 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4987229 D…: $1,894.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,230.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4987229?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4987229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11386703-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Celestial Crescent, Orewa, Orewa 0931 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4987229 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4987229 — net $2,205.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4987229 dated 25/10/2024	$1,894.38		Previous order application 4987229 dated 25/10/2024
Repairs	$1,230.30		erment and depreciation, as the premises were new. The tenant is ordered to pay $1,230.30.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Waste Disposal		$270.28	in compensation. The tenancy lasted 67 weeks and 4 days.
Compensation: Electrical issues		$675.60	Electrical issues
Total award	$3,151.68	$945.88
Net award	$2,205.80
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,205.80

Order

Lucky Nyoni and Olivia Mutosvori to pay Clear Property Management Limited As Agent For Next Future Ltd $2,205.80 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 25 October 2024 under application 4987229.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (6479208-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Clear Property Management Limited As Agent For Next Future Ltd: $2,205.80 Lucky Nyoni and Olivia Mutosvori: $1,594.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 20 January 2023 and ended on 7 May 2024.
There is a previous mediators order dated 25 October 2024. Pursuant to that order, the tenants were ordered to pay rent arrears of $1,478.57 and water rates arrears of $415.81. That sum was to be deducted from the bond, leaving a balance with the Bond Centre of $1,905.62.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation and release of the bond.
The law relating to the issues before the Tribunal is contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Similarly, the tenants must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “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 more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. This is significant in this hearing as the parties may find that a claim is not accepted, not because of any doubts about their voracity, but because they have failed to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case to the standard required.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner. The parties expressed feelings of disappointment and stress with how things evolved during the course of the tenancy. Tenants claims
The tenants seek compensation from the landlord for the landlord’s failure to provide them with curtains and curtain rails.
This was a new build at the start of this tenancy.
The tenants agreed that there were no curtains or curtain rails in the premises when they attended a viewing. They only realised that the premises would be provided without curtains when they had accepted the tenancy and went to pick up the keys.
The landlord informed the tenants that they could install curtains and curtain rods, but that it would be at their expense.
The landlord said that she had explained to all prospective tenants at the viewings that the premises would be provided without curtains.
A landlord’s obligations in a tenancy are set out at s.45 of the RTA. That section requires a landlord to provide premises is a reasonable state of cleanliness, comply with the Healthy Home Standards and comply in respect of buildings, health and safety and under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
There is no obligation under any of the relevant provisions of s.45 RTA or any other legislation referred to in that section, for a landlord to provide curtains and curtain rods. There is no reference to the provision of curtains and curtain rods in the tenancy agreement entered into by the parties.
In the circumstances referred to above, there would only have been an obligation on the landlord to provide curtains and rods had the landlord verbally agreed to do so. No evidence was proffered by the tenants to that effect. The claim has not been proven by the tenants and this part of the tenants application is dismissed.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligation under s.45 RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants say that the kitchen extractor fan was very noisy. They informed the landlord of this on 29 January 2023 and a reminder was sent to the landlord on 15 February 2023. They say that when the landlord came to the house, she suggested that as one of the tenants was a “handyman” he could fix it.
The landlord says that all appliances were new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord agreed that the fan was loud but that it was otherwise operational. The landlord said that she would check on the unit as it was still under warranty and denied suggesting that the tenant might fix it.
I consider that the key issue in this claim is that the unit remained loud when operated. It otherwise carried out the role for which it was designed for. Having raised the issue with the landlord, the landlord has failed to address it. I consider that there has been a loss of amenity to the tenants in their ability to use the fan. The loss has been modest in my view. The landlord is ordered to pay $4.00 per week in compensation. The tenancy lasted 67 weeks and 4 days. The landlord is to pay $270.28.
The tenants say that the sink food waste disposal did not work and has never worked throughout the course of the tenancy. They say that they informed the landlord on 29 January 2023 and that nothing has ever been done.
The landlord evidence was that the unit has always worked and worked when last inspected.
The burden of proof of proving this claim is on the tenant. I have not received any supporting evidence from either party. I am simply unable to say that it is more likely that not that the unit does not function. In those circumstances, the tenants claim is dismissed.
The tenants say that the premises had electrical issues. When certain sockets are used, the system overloads which causes the mains breaker to trip resulting in a power outage. The landlord was informed on 29 January 2023.
The landlord says that where an electrical system is overloaded the system may trip. She referred to a circumstance where too many plugs might be put into one power socket.
One of the tenants is an electrical engineer. I do not accept any evidential insinuation that he may have been unable to operate electrical appliances appropriately at the house.
As I understood the tenants’ evidence, this problem was not a daily occurrence. The outages were in the downstairs toilet, garage door and kitchen. The tenants said that as a result, they tried to avoid using those circuits, particularly in the kitchen.
The inability to use electrical appliances was no doubt frustrating for the tenants and there has been a loss of amenity to the tenants. That loss is to be compensated at $10.00 per week. The landlord is ordered to pay $675.70. Landlord claims

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 occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. In this case the landlord is insured. The excess on the landlord’s policy of insurance is $500.00. The policy entitles the insurer to impose the excess on each and every claim. With each separate item of damage considered a separate claim. The number of separate claims for damage in this case are such that the total number of excess’ would exceed the amount claimed by the landlord.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The landlord provided extensive photographic evidence of dents, gouges, scuffs and holes in the walls and doors of the premises.
The tenant says that the damage is fair wear and tear and is commensurate with a family living in the premises for nearly 16 months. I have reviewed the photos and accept that some of the scuff marks in particular, can be seen as fair wear and tear. The tenants say that the photos exaggerate the damage, but no other photos were provided by the tenant to back up this proposition.
The balance of the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord’s claim for repairs is for $1,930.30. The premises were new at the start of the tenancy. I have deducted $500.00 for what I consider to be fair wear and tear. I have made a minor reduction of $200.00 for betterment and depreciation, as the premises were new. The tenant is ordered to pay $1,230.30.
On 25 October 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for rent arrears and water rates. That previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The tenants have applied for name suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenants’ application is dismissed.
As Clear Property Management Limited As Agent For Next Future Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4987229 — net $2,205.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4987229 dated 25/10/2024	$1,894.38		Previous order application 4987229 dated 25/10/2024
Repairs	$1,230.30		erment and depreciation, as the premises were new. The tenant is ordered to pay $1,230.30.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Waste Disposal		$270.28	in compensation. The tenancy lasted 67 weeks and 4 days.
Compensation: Electrical issues		$675.60	Electrical issues
Total award	$3,151.68	$945.88
Net award	$2,205.80
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,205.80

Order

Lucky Nyoni and Olivia Mutosvori to pay Clear Property Management Limited As Agent For Next Future Ltd $2,205.80 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 25 October 2024 under application 4987229.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (6479208-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Clear Property Management Limited As Agent For Next Future Ltd: $2,205.80 Lucky Nyoni and Olivia Mutosvori: $1,594.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 20 January 2023 and ended on 7 May 2024.
There is a previous mediators order dated 25 October 2024. Pursuant to that order, the tenants were ordered to pay rent arrears of $1,478.57 and water rates arrears of $415.81. That sum was to be deducted from the bond, leaving a balance with the Bond Centre of $1,905.62.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for compensation and release of the bond.
The law relating to the issues before the Tribunal is contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Similarly, the tenants must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “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 more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. This is significant in this hearing as the parties may find that a claim is not accepted, not because of any doubts about their voracity, but because they have failed to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case to the standard required.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
Prior to reviewing the evidence of the parties in relation to these claims, I wish to record that I found the parties to this hearing to be diligent and honest people. I have absolutely no doubt that all parties came to the hearing with a genuine desire to provide their evidence in a truthful manner. The parties expressed feelings of disappointment and stress with how things evolved during the course of the tenancy. Tenants claims
The tenants seek compensation from the landlord for the landlord’s failure to provide them with curtains and curtain rails.
This was a new build at the start of this tenancy.
The tenants agreed that there were no curtains or curtain rails in the premises when they attended a viewing. They only realised that the premises would be provided without curtains when they had accepted the tenancy and went to pick up the keys.
The landlord informed the tenants that they could install curtains and curtain rods, but that it would be at their expense.
The landlord said that she had explained to all prospective tenants at the viewings that the premises would be provided without curtains.
A landlord’s obligations in a tenancy are set out at s.45 of the RTA. That section requires a landlord to provide premises is a reasonable state of cleanliness, comply with the Healthy Home Standards and comply in respect of buildings, health and safety and under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
There is no obligation under any of the relevant provisions of s.45 RTA or any other legislation referred to in that section, for a landlord to provide curtains and curtain rods. There is no reference to the provision of curtains and curtain rods in the tenancy agreement entered into by the parties.
In the circumstances referred to above, there would only have been an obligation on the landlord to provide curtains and rods had the landlord verbally agreed to do so. No evidence was proffered by the tenants to that effect. The claim has not been proven by the tenants and this part of the tenants application is dismissed.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligation under s.45 RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenants say that the kitchen extractor fan was very noisy. They informed the landlord of this on 29 January 2023 and a reminder was sent to the landlord on 15 February 2023. They say that when the landlord came to the house, she suggested that as one of the tenants was a “handyman” he could fix it.
The landlord says that all appliances were new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord agreed that the fan was loud but that it was otherwise operational. The landlord said that she would check on the unit as it was still under warranty and denied suggesting that the tenant might fix it.
I consider that the key issue in this claim is that the unit remained loud when operated. It otherwise carried out the role for which it was designed for. Having raised the issue with the landlord, the landlord has failed to address it. I consider that there has been a loss of amenity to the tenants in their ability to use the fan. The loss has been modest in my view. The landlord is ordered to pay $4.00 per week in compensation. The tenancy lasted 67 weeks and 4 days. The landlord is to pay $270.28.
The tenants say that the sink food waste disposal did not work and has never worked throughout the course of the tenancy. They say that they informed the landlord on 29 January 2023 and that nothing has ever been done.
The landlord evidence was that the unit has always worked and worked when last inspected.
The burden of proof of proving this claim is on the tenant. I have not received any supporting evidence from either party. I am simply unable to say that it is more likely that not that the unit does not function. In those circumstances, the tenants claim is dismissed.
The tenants say that the premises had electrical issues. When certain sockets are used, the system overloads which causes the mains breaker to trip resulting in a power outage. The landlord was informed on 29 January 2023.
The landlord says that where an electrical system is overloaded the system may trip. She referred to a circumstance where too many plugs might be put into one power socket.
One of the tenants is an electrical engineer. I do not accept any evidential insinuation that he may have been unable to operate electrical appliances appropriately at the house.
As I understood the tenants’ evidence, this problem was not a daily occurrence. The outages were in the downstairs toilet, garage door and kitchen. The tenants said that as a result, they tried to avoid using those circuits, particularly in the kitchen.
The inability to use electrical appliances was no doubt frustrating for the tenants and there has been a loss of amenity to the tenants. That loss is to be compensated at $10.00 per week. The landlord is ordered to pay $675.70. Landlord claims

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 occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. In this case the landlord is insured. The excess on the landlord’s policy of insurance is $500.00. The policy entitles the insurer to impose the excess on each and every claim. With each separate item of damage considered a separate claim. The number of separate claims for damage in this case are such that the total number of excess’ would exceed the amount claimed by the landlord.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: The landlord provided extensive photographic evidence of dents, gouges, scuffs and holes in the walls and doors of the premises.
The tenant says that the damage is fair wear and tear and is commensurate with a family living in the premises for nearly 16 months. I have reviewed the photos and accept that some of the scuff marks in particular, can be seen as fair wear and tear. The tenants say that the photos exaggerate the damage, but no other photos were provided by the tenant to back up this proposition.
The balance of the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord’s claim for repairs is for $1,930.30. The premises were new at the start of the tenancy. I have deducted $500.00 for what I consider to be fair wear and tear. I have made a minor reduction of $200.00 for betterment and depreciation, as the premises were new. The tenant is ordered to pay $1,230.30.
On 25 October 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for rent arrears and water rates. That previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The tenants have applied for name suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenants’ application is dismissed.
As Clear Property Management Limited As Agent For Next Future Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4987229 — Property damage at 10 Celestial Crescent, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4987229 — Property damage at 10 Celestial Crescent, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions