What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4990368?

The tribunal order states: Samantha Burrows to pay Brian Mccauley Shelley Mccauley As Trustees Of

How much money was awarded in case 4990368?

Rent Arrears: $935.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4990368?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10968292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4990368?

The tribunal order states: Samantha Burrows to pay Brian Mccauley Shelley Mccauley As Trustees Of

How much money was awarded in case 4990368?

Rent Arrears: $935.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4990368?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4990368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10968292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Bewdley Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4990368 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4990368 — net $935.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 August 2024	$935.00	Rent arrears to 16 August 2024
Net award	$935.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$935.00

Order

Samantha Burrows to pay Brian Mccauley Shelley Mccauley As Trustees Of The Hope Trust $935.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for power and broadband, and refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was a periodic tenancy which commenced 24 October 2023.
It is not in dispute that on 26 July 2024, the tenant called the landlord to advise she was giving him notice that she intended to move out of the property.
It is in dispute as to what was agreed between the parties in terms of the date the tenancy would end, and therefore, when the tenant would cease paying rent: a. The landlord says that during the phone call on 26 July 2024 the tenant said she was giving one weeks’ notice. He says he responded by reminding the tenant she was obligated to give four-weeks notice. b. The tenant says she told the landlord she was moving out on 3 August 2024. She says the landlord accepted this. In evidence, the tenant did not say the landlord agreed to reduce the period for which she was liable to pay rent, however, she appeared to be saying that was her understanding from the conversation.
On 28 July 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord saying she was following up on their phone conversation on 26 July 2024 to give written notice. In her email, 1 she stated she was moving out on Saturday 3 August 2024 and said she would clean the property on Sunday 4 August 2024 and hand the keys back either that day, or on Monday 5 August 2024.
On 29 July 2024, the landlord emailed a letter to the tenant in which he acknowledged the tenant had given verbal notice on 26 July 2024 and he would accept that date as the date notice was given. The landlord stated in the letter the tenant remained liable for rent for 28 days after giving notice, which he calculated as being to 22 August 2024. 2
On 3 August 2024, the parties met at the property for the purposes of an inspection as that was the day the tenant intended to move out. The parties gave differing evidence as to what was discussed and/or agreed on that date: a. The tenant gave evidence that she told the landlord she was not in fact able to leave the property that day but said she would be out by the end of the weekend (Sunday 4 August 2024) and she would return the keys either on Sunday or Monday. b. The tenant says the landlord said staying in the property for the weekend was fine. Given the landlord confirmed she could remain in the property for 1 The email sent 28 July 2024 was not filed and therefore was not available to me, however, both parties referred to their own copy of the email during the phone hearing and both read out the contents of the tenant’s email during the phone hearing. 2 In fact, 28 days after 26 July 2024 would take the tenancy to 23 August 2024. the weekend, the tenant says the landlord agreed to the tenancy ending on 2 August 2024. c. The tenant also says the landlord commented the property was in good condition and said she would get her bond returned. d. The landlord says there was a misunderstanding. He says he never agreed to the tenancy ending that weekend, he was simply saying it was fine for her to remain in the property for the weekend, given she would be paying rent for the next two or three weeks. e. The landlord says while at the property that day he agreed to reduce the notice period, meaning he would accept the tenant giving 3 weeks’ notice instead of 4 weeks’ notice from 26 July 2024. On that basis, the landlord says he agreed the tenant would only be liable for rent up until 16 August 2024. f. The landlord says, on that basis, the tenant would only be paying two weeks’ rent beyond the date she vacated on the weekend of 4/5 August 2024. The landlord says his comment that “it was fine” was a response to the tenant saying she would not be able to move out that day, not agreement that rent would not be due for the remainder of the agreed notice period.
Neither party gave evidence of any further correspondence or discussions relating to the end of the tenancy after 3 August 2024.
I have considered both parties’ oral evidence, and the correspondence which has been filed. I am satisfied the parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 16 August 2024 and the tenant is liable to pay rent up until that date. That is consistent with the landlord’s emailed letter dated 29 July 2024. I accept the landlord’s evidence that his response “that was fine” on 3 August 2024 was in reference to the tenant moving her possessions out. I also find that a refence to the tenant “getting her bond back” was likely a reference to the good condition the property was left in. Indeed, the landlord has not made a claim for damage or compensation.
I reject the tenant’ evidence that the landlord agreed the tenancy would end on 2 August 2024. The tenant gave evidence that she told the landlord she would hand the keys back on Sunday or Monday, meaning 4 or 5 August 2024. Given her evidence that she remained in possession of the property until 4 or 5 August 2024, there is nothing to support her contention that the tenancy ended two or three days earlier on 2 August 2024.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and I make an order accordingly.

Is the tenant responsible for paying power and broadband?

The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. See section 39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The standard arrangement in residential tenancies is for a tenant to arrange their own connections for power and/or broadband. That way the tenant(s) are billed directly by the power/broadband company for their usage. However, there are residential situations where power/broadband is provided to the property as a whole and then split between two or more households or units. Usually in those situations there are separate electricity meters which record how much power is used by the separate household units.
In this case, the landlord says there were two household units on the property – the main house where the tenant lived, and a separate “granny flat” which was rented separately. Each unit had separate electricity meters. The landlord says the arrangement in place during the tenancy was that the tenant paid a “fixed sum”, initially of $60 per week, for power and broadband. At the end of each month, the landlord received a bill from the power company with the property’s total usage and then took a reading from each of the two separate electricity meters. The landlord says the two tenants were then separately billed for their usage of electricity/broadband. A running record was kept and the amount charged each week as a “fixed sum” was adjusted where the tenant was in credit, or increased if she was in deficit.
In support of the landlord’s application seeking an order that the tenant pay $856.39 in outstanding power and broadband, the landlord has filed a one-page record from the start of the tenancy until 24 July 2024. The record lists the weekly fixed sum, the monthly actual cost, and the payments made by the tenant. The landlord gave oral evidence that each month the tenant was emailed a copy of the meter reading, an invoice from Electric Kiwi (the provider), and this spreadsheet, however, no copies of the emails or their attachments were filed and are not before me.
The tenant denies receiving all of those attachments by email each month. The tenant says she only received a spreadsheet from the landlord’s administrator and nothing else. The tenant says she feels she has been asked to pay the power/broadband for the separate tenant in the granny flat.
The standard of proof that applies to these matters is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
On the evidence filed by the landlord I am not satisfied that it is more probable than not that the amount claimed is exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. I have no evidence before me of the actual cost charged by the power/broadband company for the whole property, nor the meter readings to show the usage by this tenant.
I find the landlord has not proven his claim for compensation for power and broadband charges to the standard required and I dismiss the claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4990368 — net $935.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 August 2024	$935.00	Rent arrears to 16 August 2024
Net award	$935.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$935.00

Order

Samantha Burrows to pay Brian Mccauley Shelley Mccauley As Trustees Of The Hope Trust $935.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for power and broadband, and refund of the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was a periodic tenancy which commenced 24 October 2023.
It is not in dispute that on 26 July 2024, the tenant called the landlord to advise she was giving him notice that she intended to move out of the property.
It is in dispute as to what was agreed between the parties in terms of the date the tenancy would end, and therefore, when the tenant would cease paying rent: a. The landlord says that during the phone call on 26 July 2024 the tenant said she was giving one weeks’ notice. He says he responded by reminding the tenant she was obligated to give four-weeks notice. b. The tenant says she told the landlord she was moving out on 3 August 2024. She says the landlord accepted this. In evidence, the tenant did not say the landlord agreed to reduce the period for which she was liable to pay rent, however, she appeared to be saying that was her understanding from the conversation.
On 28 July 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord saying she was following up on their phone conversation on 26 July 2024 to give written notice. In her email, 1 she stated she was moving out on Saturday 3 August 2024 and said she would clean the property on Sunday 4 August 2024 and hand the keys back either that day, or on Monday 5 August 2024.
On 29 July 2024, the landlord emailed a letter to the tenant in which he acknowledged the tenant had given verbal notice on 26 July 2024 and he would accept that date as the date notice was given. The landlord stated in the letter the tenant remained liable for rent for 28 days after giving notice, which he calculated as being to 22 August 2024. 2
On 3 August 2024, the parties met at the property for the purposes of an inspection as that was the day the tenant intended to move out. The parties gave differing evidence as to what was discussed and/or agreed on that date: a. The tenant gave evidence that she told the landlord she was not in fact able to leave the property that day but said she would be out by the end of the weekend (Sunday 4 August 2024) and she would return the keys either on Sunday or Monday. b. The tenant says the landlord said staying in the property for the weekend was fine. Given the landlord confirmed she could remain in the property for 1 The email sent 28 July 2024 was not filed and therefore was not available to me, however, both parties referred to their own copy of the email during the phone hearing and both read out the contents of the tenant’s email during the phone hearing. 2 In fact, 28 days after 26 July 2024 would take the tenancy to 23 August 2024. the weekend, the tenant says the landlord agreed to the tenancy ending on 2 August 2024. c. The tenant also says the landlord commented the property was in good condition and said she would get her bond returned. d. The landlord says there was a misunderstanding. He says he never agreed to the tenancy ending that weekend, he was simply saying it was fine for her to remain in the property for the weekend, given she would be paying rent for the next two or three weeks. e. The landlord says while at the property that day he agreed to reduce the notice period, meaning he would accept the tenant giving 3 weeks’ notice instead of 4 weeks’ notice from 26 July 2024. On that basis, the landlord says he agreed the tenant would only be liable for rent up until 16 August 2024. f. The landlord says, on that basis, the tenant would only be paying two weeks’ rent beyond the date she vacated on the weekend of 4/5 August 2024. The landlord says his comment that “it was fine” was a response to the tenant saying she would not be able to move out that day, not agreement that rent would not be due for the remainder of the agreed notice period.
Neither party gave evidence of any further correspondence or discussions relating to the end of the tenancy after 3 August 2024.
I have considered both parties’ oral evidence, and the correspondence which has been filed. I am satisfied the parties agreed that the tenancy ended on 16 August 2024 and the tenant is liable to pay rent up until that date. That is consistent with the landlord’s emailed letter dated 29 July 2024. I accept the landlord’s evidence that his response “that was fine” on 3 August 2024 was in reference to the tenant moving her possessions out. I also find that a refence to the tenant “getting her bond back” was likely a reference to the good condition the property was left in. Indeed, the landlord has not made a claim for damage or compensation.
I reject the tenant’ evidence that the landlord agreed the tenancy would end on 2 August 2024. The tenant gave evidence that she told the landlord she would hand the keys back on Sunday or Monday, meaning 4 or 5 August 2024. Given her evidence that she remained in possession of the property until 4 or 5 August 2024, there is nothing to support her contention that the tenancy ended two or three days earlier on 2 August 2024.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and I make an order accordingly.

Is the tenant responsible for paying power and broadband?

The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. See section 39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The standard arrangement in residential tenancies is for a tenant to arrange their own connections for power and/or broadband. That way the tenant(s) are billed directly by the power/broadband company for their usage. However, there are residential situations where power/broadband is provided to the property as a whole and then split between two or more households or units. Usually in those situations there are separate electricity meters which record how much power is used by the separate household units.
In this case, the landlord says there were two household units on the property – the main house where the tenant lived, and a separate “granny flat” which was rented separately. Each unit had separate electricity meters. The landlord says the arrangement in place during the tenancy was that the tenant paid a “fixed sum”, initially of $60 per week, for power and broadband. At the end of each month, the landlord received a bill from the power company with the property’s total usage and then took a reading from each of the two separate electricity meters. The landlord says the two tenants were then separately billed for their usage of electricity/broadband. A running record was kept and the amount charged each week as a “fixed sum” was adjusted where the tenant was in credit, or increased if she was in deficit.
In support of the landlord’s application seeking an order that the tenant pay $856.39 in outstanding power and broadband, the landlord has filed a one-page record from the start of the tenancy until 24 July 2024. The record lists the weekly fixed sum, the monthly actual cost, and the payments made by the tenant. The landlord gave oral evidence that each month the tenant was emailed a copy of the meter reading, an invoice from Electric Kiwi (the provider), and this spreadsheet, however, no copies of the emails or their attachments were filed and are not before me.
The tenant denies receiving all of those attachments by email each month. The tenant says she only received a spreadsheet from the landlord’s administrator and nothing else. The tenant says she feels she has been asked to pay the power/broadband for the separate tenant in the granny flat.
The standard of proof that applies to these matters is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
On the evidence filed by the landlord I am not satisfied that it is more probable than not that the amount claimed is exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. I have no evidence before me of the actual cost charged by the power/broadband company for the whole property, nor the meter readings to show the usage by this tenant.
I find the landlord has not proven his claim for compensation for power and broadband charges to the standard required and I dismiss the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990368 — Rent arrears at 21 Bewdley Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4990368 — Rent arrears at 21 Bewdley Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for paying power and broadband?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for paying power and broadband?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions