What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5093572?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Tuivailala must pay Ya-Lan Hsu $16,072.94 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5093572?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $15,107.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $938.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093572?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11320654-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5093572?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Tuivailala must pay Ya-Lan Hsu $16,072.94 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5093572?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $15,107.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $938.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093572?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11320654-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Mead Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093572 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093572 — net $16,072.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 November 2024	$15,107.14	Rent arrears to 7 November 2024
Water rates	$938.80	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$16,072.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,072.94

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093572 — net $16,072.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 November 2024	$15,107.14	Rent arrears to 7 November 2024
Water rates	$938.80	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$16,072.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,072.94

Order

Rachel Tuivailala must pay Ya-Lan Hsu $16,072.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord was represented by Christiaan Buijsers. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. Background
The tenancy began on 27 January 2024 and ended on 7 November 2024.
The tenancy address is situated on a large piece of land. The tenant occupied the main dwelling. There is a garage and cabin on the property, which was excluded from the tenancy. At various points during the tenancy, the landlord worked in the garage. The landlord gave evidence that the cabin was in the process of being built during the tenancy. The build has not yet been completed. The landlord did not live in the garage or cabin, but visited the property from time to time to carry out work in these areas.
The landlord gave evidence that the bond of $3,080.00 has already been refunded to them with consent of the tenant. The landlord claims that they allowed the tenant to keep two dogs at the property and the bond was refunded to cover damage caused to the floors by the tenant’s dogs. Rent arrears and mitigation of loss
Section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sates: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court held that the duty to mitigate one’s loss applies to rent arrears. At paragraph [11] of the judgement, his Honour Judge Sainsbury held: ...[T]here is a duty to mitigate any loss by ensuring rent does not get too far in arrears. The test of what is required by the landlord to mitigate loss is a factual one that requires the Court to consider: (a) Whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and (b) More particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord provided rent records, which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, namely $15,107.14 (137 days).
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant experienced hardship and fell into rent arrears. The email the tenant sent to the Tribunal references health issues and job loss. The landlord states that they worked hard to support the tenant through these difficult times. The landlord submitted a number of emails between themselves and the tenant discussing the tenant’s rent arrears, various ways in which the landlord could support the tenant and discussions around an agreed payment plan. The landlord even wrote a letter in support of the tenant’s application to access their KiwiSaver funds on the grounds of hardship.
From the rent summary, it is clear that the tenant kept to the payment plan at times, but not others. The tenant paid rent and additional money towards the arrears at least twice per month from 1 May 2024 – 3 October 2024. Thereafter, the tenant did not make any further payments. The landlord filed their application with the Tribunal on 2 December 2024, which I consider to be a relatively short period of time after payments from the tenant ceased entirely.
The landlord gave evidence that the reason they showed the tenant some leniency was because the tenant was dealing with health issues, job loss and had young children in her care.
In all of the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss. They kept in constant contact with the tenant regarding the rent arrears, negotiated a payment plan to pay the arrears off and after two months passed with no receipt of any payment by the tenant, the landlord promptly filed an application with the Tribunal. I do not consider this to is a case where the landlord was naïve or careless to their own interests to persist in giving the tenant more time to pay. 1 The landlord appears to have made a considered and sympathetic decision to allow the tenant more time to pay and should not be prejudiced by the fact that payment was not made.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears of $15,107.14 is granted in full. Outstanding water rates
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. See section 39(3) RTA.
The landlord gave evidence that the property was vacant for a long time before this tenancy began and no water was consumed.
The landlord submitted original invoices from Watercare from just before the tenancy began to the end of the tenancy. The first invoice is dated 22 January 2024. It shows that an actual reading was completed on 18 January 2024. This 1 Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 at [18]. invoice shows no water consumption and the only fee charged is the fixed wastewater fee.
From 22 January 2024 – 26 August 2024, Watercare only issued invoices for the property on the basis of estimates. All of these showed no water consumption and only charged the fixed wastewater fee. The invoice dated 26 August 2024 is based upon an actual reading completed on 22 August 2024. The invoice is for a total of $1,672.08 (less the wastewater fixed fee of $29.73).
The landlord gave evidence that a leak was discovered on 15 April 2024 and repaired on 18 April 2024 by a plumber. The landlord submitted an invoice from the plumber and a letter from Watercare permitting a leak allowance of $920.01. This leaves a balance of $752.07 for the invoice dated 26 August 2024.
Water consumed as a result of a leak that the tenant did not cause is not an outgoing exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. Therefore, in respect of the water invoice dated 26 August 2024, I must determine what proportion most likely represents water actually consumed by the tenant.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Watercare dated 21 October 2024, after the leak was fixed. This invoice is based upon an actual water meter reading. It shows that between 27 August 2024 and 21 October 2024, the tenant consumed a total of approximately 36 kilolitres of water. This equates to approximately 18 kilolitres of water per month. Watercare’s fee for water consumption is $2.142 per kilolitre and $3.726 for wastewater. Therefore, the total cost for consumption of 18 kilolitres of water is $105.62. I consider this figure most likely represents the tenant’s average use of water per month. I have multiplied this figure by 7 to determine the tenant’s consumption of water between 27 January 2024 and 26 August 2024. This results in a total of $739.34. I consider this figure fairly reflects the tenant’s liability for the invoice dated 26 August 2024.
The landlord provided two further water invoices that they claim the tenant should pay. The first invoice is dated 17 September 2024. It is an estimate and the total amount due is $202.68 (less the wastewater fixed fee of $22.08). The second invoice is dated 21 October 2024 and is based upon an actual water meter reading. This invoice shows a credit of $3.22. Therefore, the tenant’s liability for the invoice dated 17 September 2024 is $199.46.
The landlord submitted one further invoice dated 18 November 2024. The tenancy ended on 7 November 2024. The landlord did not complete a final water meter reading on this date. Therefore, I am unable to determine the tenant’s actual usage of water for the invoice dated 18 November 2024. I do not consider this invoice as part of my calculations.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for a total of $938.80. Electricity and internet
The landlord claims the tenant owes a total of $698.78 for electricity and internet.
The electricity was supplied to the main dwelling and garage. The garage was not part of the tenancy and was used by the landlord from time to time. The landlord gave evidence that they used electricity in the garage to operate the lights and power tools but submitted that any usage was very low. The landlord gave evidence that they had an agreement with the tenant that the landlord would pay the fixed line charge in respect of power invoices and the tenant would pay the variable charge. The landlord submitted copies of original power invoices from Contact Energy, together with a spreadsheet showing the payments missed by the tenant.
In respect of the internet, the landlord gave evidence that a router was placed next to the garage and cabin. The landlord would use the internet when visiting the property to work in the garage. The landlord gave evidence that they reached an agreement with the tenant whereby the landlord paid internet fee and charged the tenant a flat rate of $50.00 per month.
A tenant is only responsible to pay outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. See section 39(3) RTA.
The onus is on the landlord to prove that the amounts claimed for outstanding electricity and internet are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. The fact that the landlord used electricity and internet at the property from time to time means that they cannot do this. There is no separate power meter for the garage from which a reading could have been taken to determine the landlord’s use of power. Similarly, the landlord is unable to prove that the tenant used $50.00 worth of internet per month.
The landlord’s claims for outstanding electricity and internet invoices is dismissed.

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) RTA. 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 landlord seeks compensation of $292.00 for cleaning and provided an invoice for this amount.
Mr Buijsers gave evidence that the tenant agreed to pay for cleaning at the end of the tenancy, but was unable to provide much detail on the state of the property. No photographs of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy were submitted to the Tribunal.
In the absence of photographs, the landlord has not proven that the tenant left the property in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is dismissed.

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.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging a window and the walls during the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation of $282.84 for the window and $460.00 for the walls. The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts.
In respect of the window, the landlord gave evidence that one of the tenant’s dogs jumped up to the windowpane and cracked the window. In respect of the walls, the landlord gave evidence that they were scratched and there were patches of missing paint at the end of the tenancy. The landlord did not submit photographs of the property at the beginning of the tenancy or at the end of the end of the tenancy. No photographs proving the damage were produced.
In the absence of photographs, I am left uncertain as to whether the window and walls were damaged during the tenancy. I am also left uncertain as to whether the damage in respect of the walls was fair wear and tear or not.
The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant intentionally or carelessly damaged the window or walls during the tenancy, or that any such damage is not a result of fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the window and walls is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Ya-Lan Hsu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093572 — Rent arrears at 25 Mead Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093572 — Rent arrears at 25 Mead Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions