What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994708?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and identifying details are supressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4994708?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994708?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11437936-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994708?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and identifying details are supressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4994708?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994708?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11437936-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

139 William Jones Drive, Otangarei, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4994708 — Rent arrears

Order

The landlord’s name and identifying details are supressed.
An order is made dispensing with service of the application on the tenant.
Hamilton Iripa must pay Riverstone Rentals Limited $2,817 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 (6177322-001) to Riverstone Rentals Limited immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord also sought an order dispensing with service, which was granted.

How much is owed for rent and water?

The landlord provided rent records which provide the amount owing for rent as at the end of the tenancy.
I am not able to order the water invoices to be paid because those have not been produced. The property manager which has brought the application took over from another property manager and has not been provided with the relevant invoices.
I consider the claim for water rates is unproven at this stage but if the landlord is able to get those records then it could look to bring a fresh application. Ultimately that would be a matter for a second adjudicator to determine.

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 is claiming for general cleaning, curtain cleaning, oven cleaning and rubbish removal,
The tenancy commenced in 2017. There are no photographs provided showing the condition of the premises at that time. There are only a small selection of photographs provided at the end of the tenancy, mainly of the backyard.
It is clear from the photographs I have that the backyard is heavily overgrown. There is a lot of rubbish left around. There is a photo showing a trailer piled high with rubbish and an old mattress. The tenant was there for a long time so I have a level of confidence that this situation prevailed because of his neglect.
There are not a lot of photographs of the interior. Although I understand the reason for the lack of evidence, this lack of proof constrains me from making orders for the amounts claimed. I must apply the same standards as those of other decisions in the tribunal and require evidence corroborating the claims. The landlord has the burden of proof. They must prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. Reports and photographs are often an important part of discharging that burden.
I consider it appropriate to allow $1,000 for all cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal. In the absence of the usual corroborating evidence I am unable to award any further amount.

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.
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 landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) Holes in the walls b) A broken window c) Kitchen cupboard doors removed d) Kitchen drawers missing e) Broken element.
There were no photographs of the broken window. There were no photographs of the holes in the walls. I am not aware of how old the items that were damaged were at the time of their alleged destruction. There is a lack of invoicing records.
There are no photographs of these items at the outset of the tenancy.
Typically the tribunal would be provided with this information.
I consider the claims for repairs and damage to be unproven at this point. The landlord has the burden of proving their case on the balance of probabilities. The landlord has not proven the claim at this stage.
If they are able to eventually obtain the photographs and documents they need from the prior property manager, they could consider bringing a second claim. However, ultimately that would be for a second adjudicator to determine.
Because Riverstone Rentals Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Riverstone Rentals Ltd does not seek name suppression.

Order

The landlord’s name and identifying details are supressed.
An order is made dispensing with service of the application on the tenant.
Hamilton Iripa must pay Riverstone Rentals Limited $2,817 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 (6177322-001) to Riverstone Rentals Limited immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord also sought an order dispensing with service, which was granted.

How much is owed for rent and water?

The landlord provided rent records which provide the amount owing for rent as at the end of the tenancy.
I am not able to order the water invoices to be paid because those have not been produced. The property manager which has brought the application took over from another property manager and has not been provided with the relevant invoices.
I consider the claim for water rates is unproven at this stage but if the landlord is able to get those records then it could look to bring a fresh application. Ultimately that would be a matter for a second adjudicator to determine.

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 is claiming for general cleaning, curtain cleaning, oven cleaning and rubbish removal,
The tenancy commenced in 2017. There are no photographs provided showing the condition of the premises at that time. There are only a small selection of photographs provided at the end of the tenancy, mainly of the backyard.
It is clear from the photographs I have that the backyard is heavily overgrown. There is a lot of rubbish left around. There is a photo showing a trailer piled high with rubbish and an old mattress. The tenant was there for a long time so I have a level of confidence that this situation prevailed because of his neglect.
There are not a lot of photographs of the interior. Although I understand the reason for the lack of evidence, this lack of proof constrains me from making orders for the amounts claimed. I must apply the same standards as those of other decisions in the tribunal and require evidence corroborating the claims. The landlord has the burden of proof. They must prove their claim on the balance of probabilities. Reports and photographs are often an important part of discharging that burden.
I consider it appropriate to allow $1,000 for all cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal. In the absence of the usual corroborating evidence I am unable to award any further amount.

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.
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 landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) Holes in the walls b) A broken window c) Kitchen cupboard doors removed d) Kitchen drawers missing e) Broken element.
There were no photographs of the broken window. There were no photographs of the holes in the walls. I am not aware of how old the items that were damaged were at the time of their alleged destruction. There is a lack of invoicing records.
There are no photographs of these items at the outset of the tenancy.
Typically the tribunal would be provided with this information.
I consider the claims for repairs and damage to be unproven at this point. The landlord has the burden of proving their case on the balance of probabilities. The landlord has not proven the claim at this stage.
If they are able to eventually obtain the photographs and documents they need from the prior property manager, they could consider bringing a second claim. However, ultimately that would be for a second adjudicator to determine.
Because Riverstone Rentals Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Riverstone Rentals Ltd does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994708 — Rent arrears at 139 William Jones Drive, Otangarei, Whangarei 0112

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994708 — Rent arrears at 139 William Jones Drive, Otangarei, Whangarei 0112

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management