What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093489 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5093489?

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 5093489?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11654478-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093489 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5093489?

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 5093489?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11654478-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 4, 59 Cambridge Terrace, Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093489 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat Unit 4, 59 Cambridge Terrace, Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093489 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Order

An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.
Happiness Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $450.00 immediately in accordance with the following table:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] was represented by [The tenant’s representative] (his flatmate) as [The tenant/s] is now residing overseas. The landlord trust was represented by Mrs Gong, a trustee, although her husband, another trustee, undertook the majority of the discussions with [The tenant/s] during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] has applied for his bond to be returned and compensation relating to his tenancy which was in place between March 2023 and November 2024.
Mr Vin, (Mrs Gong’s husband) representing the landlord trust has cross applied for compensation from the bond following the end of the tenancy.
I discuss each claim below separately. I firstly note that a number of documents were provided to me at the hearing. Accordingly, at the conclusion of the hearing I advised the parties that I required some time to go through them and I would contact them if I had any questions. I also approved them to file any further evidence they had and Mrs Gong to file invoices for the cleaning and rubbish removal. This decision is formulated after thorough consideration of all evidence provided.
To each of the claims I apply the civil standard of proof being the balance of probabilities and bear in mind that the applicant of each claim has the burden of proving their case to that standard.
Finally, I note that as discussed at the hearing, when [The tenant/s]’s fixed term tenancy ended on 2 March 2024 it rolled over into a periodic tenancy. 1 There was some discussion about another tenancy commencing in [The tenant’s representative] name as he moved into the home in March but that did not eventuate, and both [The tenant/s] and [The tenant’s representative] stayed on. I therefore consider the duration of the tenancy (March 2023 until November 2024) to be the same and only tenancy between [The tenant/s] and the landlord. Tenant’s claims

How much was paid in bond?

There is a dispute as to how much bond was paid. It is agreed $2400 was paid initially and [The tenant’s representative] says another $860 was paid when the rent increased in February 2024. He has provided evidence of that transaction in the form of a text and screenshot of the payment.
The bond was not lodged at the Bond Centre.
On the evidence I am satisfied that $3260 was paid in bond. I accept the top up to the bond was paid on 5 March 2024 as it was receipted into the landlord’s bank account, referenced as “deposit” and was not accounted for in the rent 11 Pursuant to section 60A of the RTA summary. There is also a text from [The tenant/s] to Mr Vin asking for a receipt for the payment which he said he would provide.
[The tenant/s] also says he paid $500 as an electricity bond at the beginning of the tenancy. Mrs Gong says she never saw it although recalls a discussion about it, and her husband cannot remember it.
The discrepancy arises from [The tenant/s] saying he paid the $1400 initially in cash to secure the tenancy before he got a bank account. He then paid $5,080 on 6 March which covered two weeks rent, the remainder of the bond, the electricity bond and some money for furniture he was buying.
There is agreement that there was a payment for furniture, what is not agreed on is the alleged electricity bond.
In this situation there is evidence that is either contradictory and as such calls for the Tribunal to draw inferences. In that case the standard which the Tribunal adopts is the interpretation which a reasonable person would put on the evidence. For these purposes, as the Supreme Court put it in Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2014] NZSC 147, the court (or tribunal) embodies the reasonable person.
Having assessed the evidence, I find it more likely than not that $500 electricity bond was paid in cash. This is because Mrs Gong recalls a discussion about it and [The tenant/s] is adamant he paid it. Numerous text messages refer to it and within those text messages its existence does not appear disputed by the landlord. Mr Vin was not present to give direct evidence as to his receipt of the case or not.
Also noteworthy is that the discussions and transactions regarding finances at the commencement of the tenancy were fluid and not fully documented. Contributing further to my finding is that the landlord breached section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre. 2 This indicates the lackadaisical way in which the tenancy was commenced by the landlord.
Pursuant to section 18A of the RTA a landlord may not require a tenant to provide the landlord with any form of security to secure any payment or performance arising out of, or in connection with, the tenancy. This payment was therefore unlawful and must be immediately refunded.

Was the rent increase lawful?

A rent increase occurred in February 2024 by virtue of a text from Mr Vin saying the rent would increase by $30 from that week. 2 I make no other awards with respect to this breach as the tenant did not make claim for such.
Mrs Gong says this was as a result of a verbal discussion between her husband and [The tenant/s] when [The tenant’s representative] was to move in. She says [The tenant/s] original fixed term ended on 2 March 2024 and after that time when [The tenant’s representative] moved in with [The tenant/s] and the tenancy changed to a periodic tenancy, with increased occupancy, the rent was to increase by $30 per week.
[The tenant’s representative] disagree saying the rent increased before he moved in. When he moved in is unclear, but the bank account evidence indicates the rent increase commenced in the first week of March.
Section 24 of the RTA states how a landlord may increase the rent. These requirements were not met here, most importantly 60 days’ notice was not provided. Accordingly, I find this was an unlawful rent increase and direct that the payments made pursuant to that increase ($30 per week from 1 March to 7 November) should be refunded.

Was the rent overpaid?

[The tenant/s] claims reimbursement of two weeks over paid rent.
Having assessed the bank statements and rent summary, it appears the tenants are one week in arrears rather than the two weeks in credit [The tenant/s] claimed. The arrears relate to the rental week (9-15 August) which was not paid. Accordingly, these arrears are directed to be paid by the tenant.

Did the tenant have a lack of amenity?

[The tenant/s] seeks reimbursement of two weeks’ rent for a period in October 2024 when they did not have power due to a fault issue and a period in early 2023 when there was a leak.
He says they lost items from the fridge during the power cut and had to stay home to let the trades access the property. He does not think the landlord acted quickly enough on the matter.
Both parties accept that the power outage was not within the control of the landlord. I accept Mrs Gong’s evidence that they got onto the power company promptly and followed them up until the matter was resolved.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not breach section 45 of the RTA as they followed this matter up promptly. I do however accept that the tenants were without power for at least 5 days. This is a lack of amenity, particularly as their electricity provision was included within their rent. Given the allocation to power was $30 per week, I find it reasonable to award reimbursement of that week’s allocation.
The evidence regarding the leak is minimal as it happened before [The tenant’s representative] had moved in and [The tenant/s] did not raise complaint with the landlord at the time. There is no evidence of lack of amenity nor damage of items, nor unreasonable period of inaction. Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed as it is not established in evidence. Landlord’s claims

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

At the hearing date the belongings had not been removed nor the premise cleaned. These actions were approved by the Tribunal and the landlord submitted the invoice for that work after the hearing.
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) RTA. The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
[The tenant’s representative] agrees to the landlord’s claim for cleaning.
[The tenant’s representative] says [The tenant/s] said the furniture left at the property was the landlord’s which is why they did not remove it when they vacated. The landlord however has provided evidence that [The tenant/s] purchased the furniture from the landlord, accordingly it was [The tenant/s] responsibility to deal with it at the end of the tenancy.
Mrs Gong did offer for [The tenant’s representative] to remove the furniture and clean, but he declined. Accordingly, [The tenant/s] is liable for the landlord’s costs as he did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all belongings.
Those costs however must still be reasonable and directly attributable to the tenant’s breach of section 40(1)(e)(ii) and (iii) of the RTA. The amount sought is particularly high, $1,860 and I consider it disproportionate with the amount of work required as depicted by the photographs. The invoice does not specify an hourly rate nor the number of hours the work took. Further it does not note the transfer station costs.
Accordingly, I reduce the quantum sought to an amount considered more reasonable, an amount that can be justified by the evidence provided, and an amount commensurate with the statutory standard expected of tenants: $1,200.
As the landlord is holding the bond, the amount owed to them must be deduced from the bond and the remainder of the bond returned to the tenant. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion whilst weighing up the parties’ interests and the public interest. The tenant applies for suppression and has been successful in the majority of their claims, accordingly I approve that application.

Order

An application for suppression has been made and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.
Happiness Family Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $450.00 immediately in accordance with the following table:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] was represented by [The tenant’s representative] (his flatmate) as [The tenant/s] is now residing overseas. The landlord trust was represented by Mrs Gong, a trustee, although her husband, another trustee, undertook the majority of the discussions with [The tenant/s] during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] has applied for his bond to be returned and compensation relating to his tenancy which was in place between March 2023 and November 2024.
Mr Vin, (Mrs Gong’s husband) representing the landlord trust has cross applied for compensation from the bond following the end of the tenancy.
I discuss each claim below separately. I firstly note that a number of documents were provided to me at the hearing. Accordingly, at the conclusion of the hearing I advised the parties that I required some time to go through them and I would contact them if I had any questions. I also approved them to file any further evidence they had and Mrs Gong to file invoices for the cleaning and rubbish removal. This decision is formulated after thorough consideration of all evidence provided.
To each of the claims I apply the civil standard of proof being the balance of probabilities and bear in mind that the applicant of each claim has the burden of proving their case to that standard.
Finally, I note that as discussed at the hearing, when [The tenant/s]’s fixed term tenancy ended on 2 March 2024 it rolled over into a periodic tenancy. 1 There was some discussion about another tenancy commencing in [The tenant’s representative] name as he moved into the home in March but that did not eventuate, and both [The tenant/s] and [The tenant’s representative] stayed on. I therefore consider the duration of the tenancy (March 2023 until November 2024) to be the same and only tenancy between [The tenant/s] and the landlord. Tenant’s claims

How much was paid in bond?

There is a dispute as to how much bond was paid. It is agreed $2400 was paid initially and [The tenant’s representative] says another $860 was paid when the rent increased in February 2024. He has provided evidence of that transaction in the form of a text and screenshot of the payment.
The bond was not lodged at the Bond Centre.
On the evidence I am satisfied that $3260 was paid in bond. I accept the top up to the bond was paid on 5 March 2024 as it was receipted into the landlord’s bank account, referenced as “deposit” and was not accounted for in the rent 11 Pursuant to section 60A of the RTA summary. There is also a text from [The tenant/s] to Mr Vin asking for a receipt for the payment which he said he would provide.
[The tenant/s] also says he paid $500 as an electricity bond at the beginning of the tenancy. Mrs Gong says she never saw it although recalls a discussion about it, and her husband cannot remember it.
The discrepancy arises from [The tenant/s] saying he paid the $1400 initially in cash to secure the tenancy before he got a bank account. He then paid $5,080 on 6 March which covered two weeks rent, the remainder of the bond, the electricity bond and some money for furniture he was buying.
There is agreement that there was a payment for furniture, what is not agreed on is the alleged electricity bond.
In this situation there is evidence that is either contradictory and as such calls for the Tribunal to draw inferences. In that case the standard which the Tribunal adopts is the interpretation which a reasonable person would put on the evidence. For these purposes, as the Supreme Court put it in Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2014] NZSC 147, the court (or tribunal) embodies the reasonable person.
Having assessed the evidence, I find it more likely than not that $500 electricity bond was paid in cash. This is because Mrs Gong recalls a discussion about it and [The tenant/s] is adamant he paid it. Numerous text messages refer to it and within those text messages its existence does not appear disputed by the landlord. Mr Vin was not present to give direct evidence as to his receipt of the case or not.
Also noteworthy is that the discussions and transactions regarding finances at the commencement of the tenancy were fluid and not fully documented. Contributing further to my finding is that the landlord breached section 19 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by failing to lodge the bond at the Bond Centre. 2 This indicates the lackadaisical way in which the tenancy was commenced by the landlord.
Pursuant to section 18A of the RTA a landlord may not require a tenant to provide the landlord with any form of security to secure any payment or performance arising out of, or in connection with, the tenancy. This payment was therefore unlawful and must be immediately refunded.

Was the rent increase lawful?

A rent increase occurred in February 2024 by virtue of a text from Mr Vin saying the rent would increase by $30 from that week. 2 I make no other awards with respect to this breach as the tenant did not make claim for such.
Mrs Gong says this was as a result of a verbal discussion between her husband and [The tenant/s] when [The tenant’s representative] was to move in. She says [The tenant/s] original fixed term ended on 2 March 2024 and after that time when [The tenant’s representative] moved in with [The tenant/s] and the tenancy changed to a periodic tenancy, with increased occupancy, the rent was to increase by $30 per week.
[The tenant’s representative] disagree saying the rent increased before he moved in. When he moved in is unclear, but the bank account evidence indicates the rent increase commenced in the first week of March.
Section 24 of the RTA states how a landlord may increase the rent. These requirements were not met here, most importantly 60 days’ notice was not provided. Accordingly, I find this was an unlawful rent increase and direct that the payments made pursuant to that increase ($30 per week from 1 March to 7 November) should be refunded.

Was the rent overpaid?

[The tenant/s] claims reimbursement of two weeks over paid rent.
Having assessed the bank statements and rent summary, it appears the tenants are one week in arrears rather than the two weeks in credit [The tenant/s] claimed. The arrears relate to the rental week (9-15 August) which was not paid. Accordingly, these arrears are directed to be paid by the tenant.

Did the tenant have a lack of amenity?

[The tenant/s] seeks reimbursement of two weeks’ rent for a period in October 2024 when they did not have power due to a fault issue and a period in early 2023 when there was a leak.
He says they lost items from the fridge during the power cut and had to stay home to let the trades access the property. He does not think the landlord acted quickly enough on the matter.
Both parties accept that the power outage was not within the control of the landlord. I accept Mrs Gong’s evidence that they got onto the power company promptly and followed them up until the matter was resolved.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not breach section 45 of the RTA as they followed this matter up promptly. I do however accept that the tenants were without power for at least 5 days. This is a lack of amenity, particularly as their electricity provision was included within their rent. Given the allocation to power was $30 per week, I find it reasonable to award reimbursement of that week’s allocation.
The evidence regarding the leak is minimal as it happened before [The tenant’s representative] had moved in and [The tenant/s] did not raise complaint with the landlord at the time. There is no evidence of lack of amenity nor damage of items, nor unreasonable period of inaction. Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed as it is not established in evidence. Landlord’s claims

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

At the hearing date the belongings had not been removed nor the premise cleaned. These actions were approved by the Tribunal and the landlord submitted the invoice for that work after the hearing.
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) RTA. The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
[The tenant’s representative] agrees to the landlord’s claim for cleaning.
[The tenant’s representative] says [The tenant/s] said the furniture left at the property was the landlord’s which is why they did not remove it when they vacated. The landlord however has provided evidence that [The tenant/s] purchased the furniture from the landlord, accordingly it was [The tenant/s] responsibility to deal with it at the end of the tenancy.
Mrs Gong did offer for [The tenant’s representative] to remove the furniture and clean, but he declined. Accordingly, [The tenant/s] is liable for the landlord’s costs as he did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all belongings.
Those costs however must still be reasonable and directly attributable to the tenant’s breach of section 40(1)(e)(ii) and (iii) of the RTA. The amount sought is particularly high, $1,860 and I consider it disproportionate with the amount of work required as depicted by the photographs. The invoice does not specify an hourly rate nor the number of hours the work took. Further it does not note the transfer station costs.
Accordingly, I reduce the quantum sought to an amount considered more reasonable, an amount that can be justified by the evidence provided, and an amount commensurate with the statutory standard expected of tenants: $1,200.
As the landlord is holding the bond, the amount owed to them must be deduced from the bond and the remainder of the bond returned to the tenant. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion whilst weighing up the parties’ interests and the public interest. The tenant applies for suppression and has been successful in the majority of their claims, accordingly I approve that application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093489 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 4, 59 Cambridge Terrace, Te Aro, Wellington

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093489 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 4, 59 Cambridge Terrace, Te Aro, Wellington

Order

Reasons

How much was paid in bond?

Was the rent increase lawful?

Was the rent overpaid?

Did the tenant have a lack of amenity?

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

Order

Reasons

How much was paid in bond?

Was the rent increase lawful?

Was the rent overpaid?

Did the tenant have a lack of amenity?

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