What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4988189 about?

The tribunal order states: Joshua Wood-Olsen and Krystal Lee Thomson must pay Copland Holdings Ltd

How much money was awarded in case 4988189?

Property Damage: $149.11 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $35.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,791.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,950.00 awarded to landlord; Concrete: $515.51 awarded to landlord; Painting Porch: $130.68 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.52 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $155.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4988189?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4988189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11430737-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4988189 about?

The tribunal order states: Joshua Wood-Olsen and Krystal Lee Thomson must pay Copland Holdings Ltd

How much money was awarded in case 4988189?

Property Damage: $149.11 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $35.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,791.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,950.00 awarded to landlord; Concrete: $515.51 awarded to landlord; Painting Porch: $130.68 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.52 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $155.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4988189?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4988189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11430737-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

628 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4988189 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

628 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4988189 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4988189 — net $10,382.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 28 January 2024	$3,791.14	Rent arrears (to 28 January 2024
Rubbish removal	$600.52	Rubbish removal
Water rates	$155.74	Water rates
Repairs: 9 x insurance excess	$4,950.00	Repairs: 9 x insurance excess
Repairs: concrete	$515.51	Repairs: concrete
Repairs: painting porch	$130.68	Repairs: painting porch
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: panel heater	$149.11	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: panel heater
Lock/key replacement	$35.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement: 4839420	$27.00	4839420
Filing fee reimbursement: 4988189	$27.00	4988189
Net award	$10,382.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,382.20

Claims and awards for application 4988189 — net $10,382.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 28 January 2024

Amount: $3,791.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 28 January 2024

Rubbish removal

Amount: $600.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Water rates

Amount: $155.74
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: 9 x insurance excess

Amount: $4,950.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 9 x insurance excess

Repairs: concrete

Amount: $515.51
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: concrete

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Joshua Wood-Olsen and Krystal Lee Thomson must pay Copland Holdings Ltd And David Copland & Christine Copland As The Trustee For Copland Property Trust $10,382.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 28 January 2024)$3,791.14 Rubbish removal$600.52 Water rates$155.74 Repairs: 9 x insurance excess$4,950.00 Repairs: concrete$515.51 Repairs: painting porch$130.68 Electrical fittings replacement/repair: panel heater$149.11 Lock/key replacement$35.50 Filing fee reimbursement: 4839420$27.00 Filing fee reimbursement: 4988189$27.00 Total award$10,382.20 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$10,382.20
The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mrs Copland attended for the landlord and Ms Thomson attended for the tenants with a support person.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal had made an order for rent arrears in May 2024, under application 4839420. The landlord applied for a rehearing on the basis that the identity of the male tenant was not correctly recorded in the tenancy agreement and Ms Thomson’s name was incorrectly spelt. The rehearing was granted in November 2024.
I heard all the landlord claims over two hearings in December 2024 and January 2025.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” (emphasis added)
In this instance the landlord provided limited evidence of the condition of the property both at the start and end of the tenancy.

Who Were the Tenants?

The tenants named on the tenancy agreement are Ms Thomson and a Mr Marshall. However, the landlord believes that the male tenant was, in fact, Mr Wood-Olsen. Mrs Copland has provided evidence regarding the tenant’s identity.
The evidence included mail sent to the tenancy premises, discussions with the Police and Mr Marshall regarding alleged identity theft by Mr Wood-Olsen, the tenant email address.
Ms Thomson declined to provide the Tribunal with any evidence or explanation regarding the identity of the male tenant. These applications were served on the email address for service for the male tenant, and neither a Mr Marshall nor a Mr Wood-Olsen attended the hearing.
On the evidence before me, I find it more likely than not that the male tenant was Mr Wood-Olsen.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing as of 28 January 2025. The amounts awarded for rent arrears and water rates are proved.
For the avoidance of doubt, this Order supersedes and replaces the Order of the Tribunal dated 6 May 2024 under application 4839420.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did remove all rubbish, did not return all keys or security remotes and removed some chattels and smoke alarms.
As noted above, the landlord has the onus of proof, and its evidence was sparse. It did provide some evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, but not to the standard the Tribunal would usually expect. The landlord also provided receipts.
I find that the landlord established its claims for rubbish removal, remote control replacement and a removed panel heater. It did not establish other claims for replacement chattels and smoke alarms. Those claims are 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.
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.
The landlord claimed that a range of damage occurred during the tenancy but provided limited evidence of both the in-going and out-going condition of the property. The tenant disputed the claims.
By way of example, the landlord claimed five insurance excesses for damaged carpet, but only provided evidence of the condition of the carpet in the “wardrobe bedroom” and the “fireplace bedroom” at the end of the tenancy. I award two of the five excesses claimed for carpet damage.
The landlord also established claims for a missing gate, extractor fan & soffit repair, garage door repair, porch door, kitchen and small bedroom window repairs and a lounge cupboard. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I award 7 excesses for those items. Claims for other insurance excesses are dismissed.
The landlord also established that some exterior concrete was damaged/removed during the tenancy and that an area of the porch had been poorly decorated and needed repainting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered for those items are proved.
The landlord did not establish other claims for damage. They are dismissed.
As the landlord was substantially successful with both applications, I award reimbursement of both Tribunal application fees.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4988189 — net $10,382.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 28 January 2024	$3,791.14	Rent arrears (to 28 January 2024
Rubbish removal	$600.52	Rubbish removal
Water rates	$155.74	Water rates
Repairs: 9 x insurance excess	$4,950.00	Repairs: 9 x insurance excess
Repairs: concrete	$515.51	Repairs: concrete
Repairs: painting porch	$130.68	Repairs: painting porch
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: panel heater	$149.11	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: panel heater
Lock/key replacement	$35.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement: 4839420	$27.00	4839420
Filing fee reimbursement: 4988189	$27.00	4988189
Net award	$10,382.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$10,382.20

Claims and awards for application 4988189 — net $10,382.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears (to 28 January 2024

Amount: $3,791.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears (to 28 January 2024

Rubbish removal

Amount: $600.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Water rates

Amount: $155.74
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: 9 x insurance excess

Amount: $4,950.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 9 x insurance excess

Repairs: concrete

Amount: $515.51
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: concrete

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage Filing Fee Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

Joshua Wood-Olsen and Krystal Lee Thomson must pay Copland Holdings Ltd And David Copland & Christine Copland As The Trustee For Copland Property Trust $10,382.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 28 January 2024)$3,791.14 Rubbish removal$600.52 Water rates$155.74 Repairs: 9 x insurance excess$4,950.00 Repairs: concrete$515.51 Repairs: painting porch$130.68 Electrical fittings replacement/repair: panel heater$149.11 Lock/key replacement$35.50 Filing fee reimbursement: 4839420$27.00 Filing fee reimbursement: 4988189$27.00 Total award$10,382.20 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$10,382.20
The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mrs Copland attended for the landlord and Ms Thomson attended for the tenants with a support person.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal had made an order for rent arrears in May 2024, under application 4839420. The landlord applied for a rehearing on the basis that the identity of the male tenant was not correctly recorded in the tenancy agreement and Ms Thomson’s name was incorrectly spelt. The rehearing was granted in November 2024.
I heard all the landlord claims over two hearings in December 2024 and January 2025.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” (emphasis added)
In this instance the landlord provided limited evidence of the condition of the property both at the start and end of the tenancy.

Who Were the Tenants?

The tenants named on the tenancy agreement are Ms Thomson and a Mr Marshall. However, the landlord believes that the male tenant was, in fact, Mr Wood-Olsen. Mrs Copland has provided evidence regarding the tenant’s identity.
The evidence included mail sent to the tenancy premises, discussions with the Police and Mr Marshall regarding alleged identity theft by Mr Wood-Olsen, the tenant email address.
Ms Thomson declined to provide the Tribunal with any evidence or explanation regarding the identity of the male tenant. These applications were served on the email address for service for the male tenant, and neither a Mr Marshall nor a Mr Wood-Olsen attended the hearing.
On the evidence before me, I find it more likely than not that the male tenant was Mr Wood-Olsen.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing as of 28 January 2025. The amounts awarded for rent arrears and water rates are proved.
For the avoidance of doubt, this Order supersedes and replaces the Order of the Tribunal dated 6 May 2024 under application 4839420.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did remove all rubbish, did not return all keys or security remotes and removed some chattels and smoke alarms.
As noted above, the landlord has the onus of proof, and its evidence was sparse. It did provide some evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, but not to the standard the Tribunal would usually expect. The landlord also provided receipts.
I find that the landlord established its claims for rubbish removal, remote control replacement and a removed panel heater. It did not establish other claims for replacement chattels and smoke alarms. Those claims are 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.
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.
The landlord claimed that a range of damage occurred during the tenancy but provided limited evidence of both the in-going and out-going condition of the property. The tenant disputed the claims.
By way of example, the landlord claimed five insurance excesses for damaged carpet, but only provided evidence of the condition of the carpet in the “wardrobe bedroom” and the “fireplace bedroom” at the end of the tenancy. I award two of the five excesses claimed for carpet damage.
The landlord also established claims for a missing gate, extractor fan & soffit repair, garage door repair, porch door, kitchen and small bedroom window repairs and a lounge cupboard. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I award 7 excesses for those items. Claims for other insurance excesses are dismissed.
The landlord also established that some exterior concrete was damaged/removed during the tenancy and that an area of the porch had been poorly decorated and needed repainting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered for those items are proved.
The landlord did not establish other claims for damage. They are dismissed.
As the landlord was substantially successful with both applications, I award reimbursement of both Tribunal application fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4988189 — Property damage at 628 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4988189 — Property damage at 628 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who Were the Tenants?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who Were the Tenants?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Frequently asked questions