What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4993235?

The tribunal order states: Janice Kay Milligan and John Edward Martyn Milligan must pay Irelands Real

How much money was awarded in case 4993235?

Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $351.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993235?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993235?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11252000-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4993235?

The tribunal order states: Janice Kay Milligan and John Edward Martyn Milligan must pay Irelands Real

How much money was awarded in case 4993235?

Cleaning: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $170.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $351.18 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4993235?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4993235?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11252000-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

763A Gloucester Street, Avonside, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4993235 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4993235 — net $7.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$351.18	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$170.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$130.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7.00

Order

Janice Kay Milligan and John Edward Martyn Milligan must pay Irelands Real Estate Limited $7.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $671.18 (5760412-005) to Irelands Real Estate Limited immediately.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Oquist attended for the landlord.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under sections 38 and 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
In a cross application, the landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I deal with the landlord’s claim first.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy began on 30 July 2016. The tenant may have moved into the property a few days prior to this but rent began to be charged from that date.
The tenancy ended on 15 August 2024.
At the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant made an arrangement to pay rent monthly. Although this is somewhat unusual and not as straightforward for accounting purposes, the landlord agreed that the tenant could pay rent in this way.
The tenant thereafter considered that the “true” rent amount was the monthly amount agreed by the parties from time to time as rent changed over the course of the eight-year tenancy and they made their final rent payment on this basis.
The tenancy agreement recorded the rent as a weekly amount and all rent increases were specified as weekly amounts.
The rent summaries continue to show the rent as a weekly amount.
Regardless of the arrangement made as to payment, the rent amount is the weekly amount as recorded in the initial tenancy agreement as varied from time to time throughout the tenancy.
The landlord changed accounting systems during the tenancy.
The first four years rent is recorded in a less than user-friendly system. It covers a period of 208 weeks. The first 52 weeks record rent due of $560.00 per week. The remainder of that period shows rent due of $540.00 per week. The total due for this first period, by my calculation, is $113,360.00.
The subsequent rent summary shows a clear amount due of $116,950.00.
The total rent due over the entire tenancy is therefore, $230,310.00.
The first rent summary period clearly shows that the tenant paid $113,671.44 for this period.
The second rent summary shows that the tenant paid $116,287.38 for the remainder of the tenancy.
The total paid is then, $229,958.82.
The difference is $351.18 in arrears and this amount 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The landlord provided an invoice in the sum of $170.00 for cleaning which specified the areas attended to. The landlord also provided photographs to support the claim.
The tenants accepted that their final clean had missed some areas, but they disputed the amount claimed and offered the sum of $100.00.
I consider the sum invoiced is very reasonable for the work required.
The landlord also provided an invoice in the sum of $130.00 for carpet cleaning and photographs to support this claim. The carpets were not reasonably clean and tidy as required by the Act and the pre tenancy inspection report indicated that they were in clean condition at the beginning of the tenancy with one discolouration mark noted (and photographed) in a bedroom only.
The tenants consider the stains to the carpet to be fair wear and tear over a lengthy tenancy.
I do not consider the stains identified by the landlord to be fair wear and tear. Although some wear might be expected over an eight-year tenancy, the stains are more extensive than would be expected and were removed by a commercial clean at a reasonable cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.
In their application, the tenants claimed a sum for compensation for alleged breaches by the landlord.
The tenant acknowledged that there had been no significant financial loss for which compensation could be claimed and they had no evidence to support any such claim.
They did, however, continue with their claim to some form of compensation which can only be by way of either general or exemplary damages.
The tenants claimed a breach of quiet enjoyment in relation to the removal of a hedge.
This is not a breach of s 38 of the Act and the tenant could not point to any other breach in relation to this incident.
The claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant made a number of claims in relation to failures to maintain: a. An unsafe roof truss reported to the tenants by an electrician and a sky television installer who were both in the roof space at different times. b. Various problems with the hot water cylinder culminating in the cylinder being unable to accommodate two people showering in succession. c. Problems with the oven which resulted in the tenants using an air fryer for most of their cooking requirements. d. The waste disposal unit repeatedly requiring resetting and eventually not working at all. e. An external door which the tenants were told needed to be resealed but was never attended to. f. A light bulb in the rangehood which failed frequently and was difficult to replace.
The Tenants provided no evidence to support any of these claims, but the landlord agreed to provide copies of the regular inspection reports following the hearing and did so.
Inspections were fairly regular until 2020 when covid lockdowns likely interfered with the usual schedule. Almost every inspection refers to the property as being generally well kept.
There is a mention of the roof truss possible issue in May 2023 where it is listed under “general comments” rather than “repairs required”. This would suggest that the property manager considered this something the owner should be aware of rather than something requiring attention.
As no inspection was completed, I cannot say whether there was any actual issue with the roof truss and the tenant acknowledged that there had been no impact on them as a result of any possible issue.
The landlord provided emails and invoices in relation to two separate issues with the hot water cylinder. One in July 2021 and one in June 2022. Both seem to be in response to direct contact by the tenant. There is no mention of problems with the cylinder in any inspection report and the invoices do not indicate an ongoing issue.
The oven door was raised in an inspection report in June 2018 and again in April 2024. The landlord provided two invoices for repairs to the oven door in June 2018 and in April 2024. The 2024 invoice notes that, “if door fails again sealing then Oven may need replacing ... as parts discontinued.”
The landlord provided an invoice in relation to the waste disposal dated January 2021. I could not see any reference to this in any inspection report so it must have been in response to a tenant request. The invoice suggests that the disposal was blocked but no reason was apparent. The repairer notes, “advised tenants to run water after turning waste disposer off.”
The tenant said the disposal had been looked at on three occasions but there is no further evidence in relation to this.
The landlord was not aware that this issue had ever been raised again there is no indication of it on the inspection reports.
In relation to the external door, the tenants said that a repair person had suggested that the door need to be resealed, but this had never been attended to. The tenant was unsure as to whether this had been brought to the landlord’s attention and confirmed that they had not suffered any impact as a result of the possible defect.
The range hood light was mentioned in a number of inspection reports. It seems that the light failed at least five times during the tenancy. To my mind this should have been an indication of a bigger issue with the rangehood and should have been explored more deeply.
Nevertheless, the light was replaced on each occasion either by the owner (who lived next door) or an electrician.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Although these matters may have been annoying to the tenant, they did not issue any 14-day notices to have the work attended to and, in some cases, they did not mention the matters to the landlord. Where matters were brought to the landlord’s attention, they were actioned, or the owner was informed.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord intentionally failed to maintain the property in any way.
The tenant’s claims for damages for failure to maintain and repair are dismissed.
The tenants also claimed that they had been treated disrespectfully by the property managers, particularly one property manager who they dealt with early in the tenancy. This claim is reinforced by some comments and an occasional tone in the inspection reports.
Ms Oquist acknowledged that the tenants felt they had not been treated well at times an apologised, at the hearing, for any disrespect shown by staff of the property manager towards the tenants.
As Irelands Real Estate Limited has wholly succeeded with their claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4993235 — net $7.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$351.18	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$170.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$130.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7.00

Order

Janice Kay Milligan and John Edward Martyn Milligan must pay Irelands Real Estate Limited $7.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $671.18 (5760412-005) to Irelands Real Estate Limited immediately.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Oquist attended for the landlord.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under sections 38 and 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
In a cross application, the landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I deal with the landlord’s claim first.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy began on 30 July 2016. The tenant may have moved into the property a few days prior to this but rent began to be charged from that date.
The tenancy ended on 15 August 2024.
At the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant made an arrangement to pay rent monthly. Although this is somewhat unusual and not as straightforward for accounting purposes, the landlord agreed that the tenant could pay rent in this way.
The tenant thereafter considered that the “true” rent amount was the monthly amount agreed by the parties from time to time as rent changed over the course of the eight-year tenancy and they made their final rent payment on this basis.
The tenancy agreement recorded the rent as a weekly amount and all rent increases were specified as weekly amounts.
The rent summaries continue to show the rent as a weekly amount.
Regardless of the arrangement made as to payment, the rent amount is the weekly amount as recorded in the initial tenancy agreement as varied from time to time throughout the tenancy.
The landlord changed accounting systems during the tenancy.
The first four years rent is recorded in a less than user-friendly system. It covers a period of 208 weeks. The first 52 weeks record rent due of $560.00 per week. The remainder of that period shows rent due of $540.00 per week. The total due for this first period, by my calculation, is $113,360.00.
The subsequent rent summary shows a clear amount due of $116,950.00.
The total rent due over the entire tenancy is therefore, $230,310.00.
The first rent summary period clearly shows that the tenant paid $113,671.44 for this period.
The second rent summary shows that the tenant paid $116,287.38 for the remainder of the tenancy.
The total paid is then, $229,958.82.
The difference is $351.18 in arrears and this amount 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The landlord provided an invoice in the sum of $170.00 for cleaning which specified the areas attended to. The landlord also provided photographs to support the claim.
The tenants accepted that their final clean had missed some areas, but they disputed the amount claimed and offered the sum of $100.00.
I consider the sum invoiced is very reasonable for the work required.
The landlord also provided an invoice in the sum of $130.00 for carpet cleaning and photographs to support this claim. The carpets were not reasonably clean and tidy as required by the Act and the pre tenancy inspection report indicated that they were in clean condition at the beginning of the tenancy with one discolouration mark noted (and photographed) in a bedroom only.
The tenants consider the stains to the carpet to be fair wear and tear over a lengthy tenancy.
I do not consider the stains identified by the landlord to be fair wear and tear. Although some wear might be expected over an eight-year tenancy, the stains are more extensive than would be expected and were removed by a commercial clean at a reasonable cost.
The amounts ordered are proved.
In their application, the tenants claimed a sum for compensation for alleged breaches by the landlord.
The tenant acknowledged that there had been no significant financial loss for which compensation could be claimed and they had no evidence to support any such claim.
They did, however, continue with their claim to some form of compensation which can only be by way of either general or exemplary damages.
The tenants claimed a breach of quiet enjoyment in relation to the removal of a hedge.
This is not a breach of s 38 of the Act and the tenant could not point to any other breach in relation to this incident.
The claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant made a number of claims in relation to failures to maintain: a. An unsafe roof truss reported to the tenants by an electrician and a sky television installer who were both in the roof space at different times. b. Various problems with the hot water cylinder culminating in the cylinder being unable to accommodate two people showering in succession. c. Problems with the oven which resulted in the tenants using an air fryer for most of their cooking requirements. d. The waste disposal unit repeatedly requiring resetting and eventually not working at all. e. An external door which the tenants were told needed to be resealed but was never attended to. f. A light bulb in the rangehood which failed frequently and was difficult to replace.
The Tenants provided no evidence to support any of these claims, but the landlord agreed to provide copies of the regular inspection reports following the hearing and did so.
Inspections were fairly regular until 2020 when covid lockdowns likely interfered with the usual schedule. Almost every inspection refers to the property as being generally well kept.
There is a mention of the roof truss possible issue in May 2023 where it is listed under “general comments” rather than “repairs required”. This would suggest that the property manager considered this something the owner should be aware of rather than something requiring attention.
As no inspection was completed, I cannot say whether there was any actual issue with the roof truss and the tenant acknowledged that there had been no impact on them as a result of any possible issue.
The landlord provided emails and invoices in relation to two separate issues with the hot water cylinder. One in July 2021 and one in June 2022. Both seem to be in response to direct contact by the tenant. There is no mention of problems with the cylinder in any inspection report and the invoices do not indicate an ongoing issue.
The oven door was raised in an inspection report in June 2018 and again in April 2024. The landlord provided two invoices for repairs to the oven door in June 2018 and in April 2024. The 2024 invoice notes that, “if door fails again sealing then Oven may need replacing ... as parts discontinued.”
The landlord provided an invoice in relation to the waste disposal dated January 2021. I could not see any reference to this in any inspection report so it must have been in response to a tenant request. The invoice suggests that the disposal was blocked but no reason was apparent. The repairer notes, “advised tenants to run water after turning waste disposer off.”
The tenant said the disposal had been looked at on three occasions but there is no further evidence in relation to this.
The landlord was not aware that this issue had ever been raised again there is no indication of it on the inspection reports.
In relation to the external door, the tenants said that a repair person had suggested that the door need to be resealed, but this had never been attended to. The tenant was unsure as to whether this had been brought to the landlord’s attention and confirmed that they had not suffered any impact as a result of the possible defect.
The range hood light was mentioned in a number of inspection reports. It seems that the light failed at least five times during the tenancy. To my mind this should have been an indication of a bigger issue with the rangehood and should have been explored more deeply.
Nevertheless, the light was replaced on each occasion either by the owner (who lived next door) or an electrician.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Although these matters may have been annoying to the tenant, they did not issue any 14-day notices to have the work attended to and, in some cases, they did not mention the matters to the landlord. Where matters were brought to the landlord’s attention, they were actioned, or the owner was informed.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord intentionally failed to maintain the property in any way.
The tenant’s claims for damages for failure to maintain and repair are dismissed.
The tenants also claimed that they had been treated disrespectfully by the property managers, particularly one property manager who they dealt with early in the tenancy. This claim is reinforced by some comments and an occasional tone in the inspection reports.
Ms Oquist acknowledged that the tenants felt they had not been treated well at times an apologised, at the hearing, for any disrespect shown by staff of the property manager towards the tenants.
As Irelands Real Estate Limited has wholly succeeded with their claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993235 — Rent arrears at 763A Gloucester Street, Avonside, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4993235 — Rent arrears at 763A Gloucester Street, Avonside, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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