What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5044428 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5044428?

Cleaning: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,850.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $286.35 awarded to landlord; By Consent: Unblock Kitchen Sink: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5044428?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5044428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11587732-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5044428 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5044428?

Cleaning: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,850.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $286.35 awarded to landlord; By Consent: Unblock Kitchen Sink: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5044428?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5044428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11587732-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15D Koromiko Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5044428 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5044428 — net $4,547.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Rent arrears to 18 October 2024	$2,850.00	By consent: Rent arrears to 18 October 2024
By consent: Rubbish removal	$286.35	By consent: Rubbish removal
By consent: Cleaning	$805.00	By consent: Cleaning
By consent: Internal garage door repair	$172.50	By consent: Internal garage door repair
By consent: Unblock kitchen sink	$207.00	By consent: Unblock kitchen sink
Repairs: Wall	$200.00	Repairs: Wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,547.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,547.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Johnson Falefa must pay [The landlord/s] $4,547.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Papaloa Falofa is the wife of the tenant. Mrs Falofa appeared on behalf of the tenant and stated that she had authority to speak on the tenant’s behalf.
At the hearing, the landlord sought to make an oral application for outstanding water rates, which I declined to allow. The landlord’s written application did not include a claim for outgoings and it was not noted as a claim raised on the notice of hearing. The landlord did not submit a copy of the final water reading or invoice from Watercare as part of their application. The tenant was not prepared to answer this claim and I did not permit the landlord to pursue it.
The landlord seeks rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not dispute the following claims and amounts sought by the landlord: a. Rent arrears up to 18 October 2024:$2,850.00 b. Rubbish removal:$286.35 c. Cleaning:$805.00 ($700.00 + GST) d. Internal garage door repair:$172.50 e. Unblock kitchen sink:$207.00
As these matters are agreed between the parties, I do not consider them as part of this decision.
The tenant disputes the following claims and amounts sought by the landlord: a. $120.00 to replace the mailbox key; and b. $575.00 ($500.00 + GST) to repair the walls.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

MAILBOX KEY

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 (RTA).
The landlord claims the tenant was provided with a key to the mailbox at the beginning of the tenancy, which was not returned at the end. The landlord has had the key and lock on the mailbox replaced at a cost of $120.00. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount.
The tenant disputes that they were ever provided with a key to the mailbox at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that they never used the mailbox during the tenancy and the landlord would have seen an accumulation of their mail at the end of the tenancy when checking it.
The landlord claims the key to the mailbox was provided to the tenant and points to a photograph of the key, together with two garage door openers, in the ingoing inspection report.
The tenant claims the photograph of the key does not prove it was actually provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord bares the onus of proving that the tenant was provided with a key to the mailbox at the beginning of the tenancy on the balance of probabilities. I have doubts about whether this was the case.
I agree with the tenant’s submission that the photograph of the key in the ingoing inspection report does not prove that it was actually provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. Further, the garage door opener is listed as a chattel provided by the landlord on the tenancy agreement however, the mailbox key is not.
The tenant did not dispute a number of claims made by the landlord. They made appropriate concessions and admitted liability where appropriate. This leads me to view the tenant’s evidence in general as more credible than not.
On the balance of probabilities, the landlord has not proven that the tenant was provided with a key to the mailbox at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $120.00 to replace the mailbox lock and key is dismissed.

WALL REPAIRS

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.
The Landlord claims the tenant is responsible for denting and staining walls inside the property.
The tenant accepts that they are responsible for a dent in one of the walls, but denies that they caused any staining to the walls.
The landlord submitted photographs of the walls. A small dent is apparent, but no staining.
On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord and evidence given by the parties, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Small dent to one wall.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant admitted liability.
The landlord seeks $575.00 to repair the wall and submitted an invoice for this amount.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the wall is granted for an adjusted amount of $200.00. I consider this amount fairly reflects the damage caused by the tenant. The dent in the wall is small and it is only apparent on one wall, whereas the invoice submitted by the landlord includes repair work for more than one wall. It also includes repair work for stains, which I have found the landlord has not proven.
The amount ordered is proved. FILING FEE & NAME SUPPRESSION
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant their request for name suppression.
The tenant did not apply for name suppression, and I can see no basis to order it.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5044428 — net $4,547.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Rent arrears to 18 October 2024	$2,850.00	By consent: Rent arrears to 18 October 2024
By consent: Rubbish removal	$286.35	By consent: Rubbish removal
By consent: Cleaning	$805.00	By consent: Cleaning
By consent: Internal garage door repair	$172.50	By consent: Internal garage door repair
By consent: Unblock kitchen sink	$207.00	By consent: Unblock kitchen sink
Repairs: Wall	$200.00	Repairs: Wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,547.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,547.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Johnson Falefa must pay [The landlord/s] $4,547.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Papaloa Falofa is the wife of the tenant. Mrs Falofa appeared on behalf of the tenant and stated that she had authority to speak on the tenant’s behalf.
At the hearing, the landlord sought to make an oral application for outstanding water rates, which I declined to allow. The landlord’s written application did not include a claim for outgoings and it was not noted as a claim raised on the notice of hearing. The landlord did not submit a copy of the final water reading or invoice from Watercare as part of their application. The tenant was not prepared to answer this claim and I did not permit the landlord to pursue it.
The landlord seeks rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not dispute the following claims and amounts sought by the landlord: a. Rent arrears up to 18 October 2024:$2,850.00 b. Rubbish removal:$286.35 c. Cleaning:$805.00 ($700.00 + GST) d. Internal garage door repair:$172.50 e. Unblock kitchen sink:$207.00
As these matters are agreed between the parties, I do not consider them as part of this decision.
The tenant disputes the following claims and amounts sought by the landlord: a. $120.00 to replace the mailbox key; and b. $575.00 ($500.00 + GST) to repair the walls.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

MAILBOX KEY

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 (RTA).
The landlord claims the tenant was provided with a key to the mailbox at the beginning of the tenancy, which was not returned at the end. The landlord has had the key and lock on the mailbox replaced at a cost of $120.00. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount.
The tenant disputes that they were ever provided with a key to the mailbox at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that they never used the mailbox during the tenancy and the landlord would have seen an accumulation of their mail at the end of the tenancy when checking it.
The landlord claims the key to the mailbox was provided to the tenant and points to a photograph of the key, together with two garage door openers, in the ingoing inspection report.
The tenant claims the photograph of the key does not prove it was actually provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord bares the onus of proving that the tenant was provided with a key to the mailbox at the beginning of the tenancy on the balance of probabilities. I have doubts about whether this was the case.
I agree with the tenant’s submission that the photograph of the key in the ingoing inspection report does not prove that it was actually provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. Further, the garage door opener is listed as a chattel provided by the landlord on the tenancy agreement however, the mailbox key is not.
The tenant did not dispute a number of claims made by the landlord. They made appropriate concessions and admitted liability where appropriate. This leads me to view the tenant’s evidence in general as more credible than not.
On the balance of probabilities, the landlord has not proven that the tenant was provided with a key to the mailbox at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $120.00 to replace the mailbox lock and key is dismissed.

WALL REPAIRS

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.
The Landlord claims the tenant is responsible for denting and staining walls inside the property.
The tenant accepts that they are responsible for a dent in one of the walls, but denies that they caused any staining to the walls.
The landlord submitted photographs of the walls. A small dent is apparent, but no staining.
On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord and evidence given by the parties, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Small dent to one wall.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant admitted liability.
The landlord seeks $575.00 to repair the wall and submitted an invoice for this amount.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the wall is granted for an adjusted amount of $200.00. I consider this amount fairly reflects the damage caused by the tenant. The dent in the wall is small and it is only apparent on one wall, whereas the invoice submitted by the landlord includes repair work for more than one wall. It also includes repair work for stains, which I have found the landlord has not proven.
The amount ordered is proved. FILING FEE & NAME SUPPRESSION
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and grant their request for name suppression.
The tenant did not apply for name suppression, and I can see no basis to order it.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5044428 — Rent arrears at 15D Koromiko Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5044428 — Rent arrears at 15D Koromiko Street, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

MAILBOX KEY

WALL REPAIRS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

MAILBOX KEY

WALL REPAIRS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions