What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5137931 about?

The tribunal order states: Mark Geoffrey Duckmanton must pay LJP NZ Limited $815.78 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5137931?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,771.24 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $307.41 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $60.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5137931?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5137931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12073918-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5137931 about?

The tribunal order states: Mark Geoffrey Duckmanton must pay LJP NZ Limited $815.78 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5137931?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,771.24 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $307.41 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $60.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5137931?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5137931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12073918-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Glenlea Place, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5137931 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5137931 — net $815.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,771.24	Rent arrears
Water rates	$60.13	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$307.41	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$815.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$815.78

Order

Mark Geoffrey Duckmanton must pay LJP NZ Limited $815.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,350.00 (3247871-018) to LJP NZ Limited immediately.
Tenant application 5209191 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A previous teleconference hearing was adjourned. This hearing was set down for in-person as the tenant subsequently lodged a counterclaim best suited to an in-person hearing.
The landlord had applied for termination, rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenancy had ended and possession returned to the landlord before the hearing.
The tenant counterclaimed, seeking compensation for failures to maintain and loss of amenity.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.” Background
The tenants first entered into a tenancy with this landlord for the smaller back premises at the same location. Later, the tenants in the front premises left and the larger size of that was attractive to the tenants and they approached the landlord to see if they could move into the front premises. This was agreed and a tenancy agreement signed. That is the tenancy subject to these two applications.
This was a long tenancy that commenced 1 February 2025 and ended 28 February 2025. It commenced with two tenants (a couple) but later reduced to one after the relationship ended in 2017. Landlord application

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 29 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy are as ordered. The tenant accepted both amounts as claimed.

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.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. A final pile of items was stacked in one corner near the driveway.
The tenant submitted he had arranged for the local authority to remove the items during a future inorganic collection. He claimed this was advised to the landlord. The landlord provided a photo of the pile after possession returned and two invoices for related dumping costs, totalling $307.41.
The tenant provided an email (shown below):
The subsequent action of the landlord to dispose of the items appears contrary to any prior mutual agreement as claimed by the tenant. The timing of the confirmation email above is after the tenant left and the email was not forwarded to the landlord. A further uncertainty is whether the inorganic collection would have removed all of the items as shown in the photo – due to size and/or type. The landlord has itemised the dumping costs of $307.41 and I accept the total as proven and award that. Filing fee
Because LJP NZ Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Tenant application
The tenant application sought compensation of $16,640.00. This was claimed due to landlord failures to maintain and loss on amenity.
In the application narrative the tenant wrote: The rental property fails to meet the Healthy Homes Standards and poses serious health and safety risks. There is no extractor fan in the kitchen, which is a direct violation of the ventilation requirements under the Healthy Homes Standards. Additionally, nails are sticking out of the carpet track, creating a hazard for injury. The kitchen has broken and saturated tiles, making the floor unsafe and unsanitary. The front lawn has wastewater overflow due to a blocked stormwater pipe, which is a significant health risk. There are noticeable draught gaps in both the front and back doors, failing to meet draught-stopping requirements. Furthermore, the handrail on the back deck is rotten, and the front steps are unsecured, creating a serious safety hazard. The landlord has breached the rental agreement by unauthorised storage of their kitchen benchtops and cabinetry in the tenant’s rented garage. The tenant pays for full use of this space, and the landlord’s actions have restricted access and created an inconvenience. This has interfered with the tenant’s ability to use the garage as intended. The law
I clarified at the hearing the Healthy Homes Standard timeline for compliance. Bar insulation (not raised as an issues) the timeline for ventilation compliance was not missed during this long tenancy.
It is well settled that the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
Given the longevity of the tenancy, I foreshadowed during the hearing possible implications on a number of the tenant claims due to the Limitations Act 2010. Under the Limitation Act 2010, the limitation period for money claims is six years from the date of the event or omission that the claim is based on. This had some application here.
The final legal point is a reminder of the point made in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, “it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case.” Analysis
The tenant provided little by way of documented evidence. The lapsed time has hindered his application due to a claimed loss of documents or devices with historic digital records. Instances of the tenant doing maintenance work for the landlord in-lieu of rent was outlined. This would have required a reasonable level of communication between the parties given the mutual acceptance of such arrangements and subsequent accounting for it in the rent summary.

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

One photo regarding the kitchen extractor and a related of a lack of external venting and a claimed failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard. The deadline for completion of this HHS requirement did not arrive until after the tenancy.
The tenant outlined a number of issues from commencement. These align with the issues raised in the application. Given the existing relationship, I questioned why such issues were not raised prior to accepting the tenancy, rather than at commencement as submitted.
A written statement was provided from Josephine Duckmanton, the second tenant at commencement and resident until 2017. The statement also confirmed maintenance issues during her tenure that aligned with the tenant’s. A call to her was later made at the request of the tenant although no questions were posed by the tenant. Josephine confirmed the issues and her exit.
The tenant application has two significant impediments to success.
Firstly, the bulk of the issues relating to maintenance appear to be out of time due to the Limitations Act 2010. One reason for a statutory limitation on civil claims is the difficulty at a much later date to revisit. The claims become “stale” and evidence becomes difficult to produce, for both parties.
Secondly, any claim that may have been within the limitation period of six years lacks any evidential support. The tenant provided minimal evidence. While the tenant objected to the landlord providing photos that showed the premises in a positive light, the obvious counter to the landlord doing what seems prudent from its perspective is for the tenant to provide photos of the claimed failures.
There is no evidence of the tenant raising maintenance issues that were not addressed by the landlord. The tenant has practical skills that meant a mutually agreeable approach at times saw work completed by the tenant with a rent rebate or reduction made.
As an aside, the landlord had sought to increase the rent to $680.00 at a later stage of the tenancy. This was negotiated down by $20.00 to $660.00 by the tenant to reflect what he considered a fairer rent for the premises as presented. Loss of amenity
The second aspect of the tenant application was the continued use of the landlord for a section of the double garage to store items. These appear to be mainly cabinetry of sorts, sourced from, or for, one of the two premises at this address for later use. The items were there at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant submitted this was accepted as a temporary arrangement but the items were never removed. They remained there at the end of the tenancy, and a recent photo shows the continued use of the landlord for storage during the new tenancy.
There is no written term or agreement regarding the use of the garage. However, the tenant’s claim that rent was inclusive of full use of the garage is not an automatic conclusion. It is not unusual for a landlord to retain some space at the premises. Ideally this is clearly recorded in the tenancy agreement.
In the absence of any specific term in the tenancy agreement, or later, I need to consider if the use of some of the garage area for storage by the landlord over the ten-year tenancy was an implied term.
Implied terms are contract terms that are not expressly stated but are assumed to be part of an agreement based on the circumstances, conduct of the parties, or legal principles. These terms can be implied by law, custom, or the presumed intentions of the parties involved. They are legally binding, just like express terms, and can fill gaps where the written contract is silent or unclear.
Given the clear ability of the tenant to negotiate with the landlord work for rent, as well as a reduction in a proposed increase later in the tenancy, it would have been open to request a temporary rent reduction during the claimed initial temporary loss of amenity, reflecting the now claimed loss of amenity. In his application he claims. Some evidence of a request by the tenant for the landlord to remove the items, being an assertion of the perceived right to use the full garage may have assisted the claim of the tenant.
I consider the continued use by the landlord for storage of the garage, in part, is an implied term of the tenancy and no compensation is awarded to the tenant. Even if wrong, the limitation period is a further challenge to any tenant success. Conclusion
The tenant has failed to evidence any claim as a landlord failure that should attract any order for compensation. The limitation period applies for many of the issues raised and they should have been the subject of an appropriate application at the time, if so merited.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5137931 — net $815.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,771.24	Rent arrears
Water rates	$60.13	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$307.41	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$815.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$815.78

Order

Mark Geoffrey Duckmanton must pay LJP NZ Limited $815.78 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,350.00 (3247871-018) to LJP NZ Limited immediately.
Tenant application 5209191 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A previous teleconference hearing was adjourned. This hearing was set down for in-person as the tenant subsequently lodged a counterclaim best suited to an in-person hearing.
The landlord had applied for termination, rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenancy had ended and possession returned to the landlord before the hearing.
The tenant counterclaimed, seeking compensation for failures to maintain and loss of amenity.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.” Background
The tenants first entered into a tenancy with this landlord for the smaller back premises at the same location. Later, the tenants in the front premises left and the larger size of that was attractive to the tenants and they approached the landlord to see if they could move into the front premises. This was agreed and a tenancy agreement signed. That is the tenancy subject to these two applications.
This was a long tenancy that commenced 1 February 2025 and ended 28 February 2025. It commenced with two tenants (a couple) but later reduced to one after the relationship ended in 2017. Landlord application

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 29 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy are as ordered. The tenant accepted both amounts as claimed.

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.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. A final pile of items was stacked in one corner near the driveway.
The tenant submitted he had arranged for the local authority to remove the items during a future inorganic collection. He claimed this was advised to the landlord. The landlord provided a photo of the pile after possession returned and two invoices for related dumping costs, totalling $307.41.
The tenant provided an email (shown below):
The subsequent action of the landlord to dispose of the items appears contrary to any prior mutual agreement as claimed by the tenant. The timing of the confirmation email above is after the tenant left and the email was not forwarded to the landlord. A further uncertainty is whether the inorganic collection would have removed all of the items as shown in the photo – due to size and/or type. The landlord has itemised the dumping costs of $307.41 and I accept the total as proven and award that. Filing fee
Because LJP NZ Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Tenant application
The tenant application sought compensation of $16,640.00. This was claimed due to landlord failures to maintain and loss on amenity.
In the application narrative the tenant wrote: The rental property fails to meet the Healthy Homes Standards and poses serious health and safety risks. There is no extractor fan in the kitchen, which is a direct violation of the ventilation requirements under the Healthy Homes Standards. Additionally, nails are sticking out of the carpet track, creating a hazard for injury. The kitchen has broken and saturated tiles, making the floor unsafe and unsanitary. The front lawn has wastewater overflow due to a blocked stormwater pipe, which is a significant health risk. There are noticeable draught gaps in both the front and back doors, failing to meet draught-stopping requirements. Furthermore, the handrail on the back deck is rotten, and the front steps are unsecured, creating a serious safety hazard. The landlord has breached the rental agreement by unauthorised storage of their kitchen benchtops and cabinetry in the tenant’s rented garage. The tenant pays for full use of this space, and the landlord’s actions have restricted access and created an inconvenience. This has interfered with the tenant’s ability to use the garage as intended. The law
I clarified at the hearing the Healthy Homes Standard timeline for compliance. Bar insulation (not raised as an issues) the timeline for ventilation compliance was not missed during this long tenancy.
It is well settled that the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
Given the longevity of the tenancy, I foreshadowed during the hearing possible implications on a number of the tenant claims due to the Limitations Act 2010. Under the Limitation Act 2010, the limitation period for money claims is six years from the date of the event or omission that the claim is based on. This had some application here.
The final legal point is a reminder of the point made in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, “it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case.” Analysis
The tenant provided little by way of documented evidence. The lapsed time has hindered his application due to a claimed loss of documents or devices with historic digital records. Instances of the tenant doing maintenance work for the landlord in-lieu of rent was outlined. This would have required a reasonable level of communication between the parties given the mutual acceptance of such arrangements and subsequent accounting for it in the rent summary.

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

One photo regarding the kitchen extractor and a related of a lack of external venting and a claimed failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standard. The deadline for completion of this HHS requirement did not arrive until after the tenancy.
The tenant outlined a number of issues from commencement. These align with the issues raised in the application. Given the existing relationship, I questioned why such issues were not raised prior to accepting the tenancy, rather than at commencement as submitted.
A written statement was provided from Josephine Duckmanton, the second tenant at commencement and resident until 2017. The statement also confirmed maintenance issues during her tenure that aligned with the tenant’s. A call to her was later made at the request of the tenant although no questions were posed by the tenant. Josephine confirmed the issues and her exit.
The tenant application has two significant impediments to success.
Firstly, the bulk of the issues relating to maintenance appear to be out of time due to the Limitations Act 2010. One reason for a statutory limitation on civil claims is the difficulty at a much later date to revisit. The claims become “stale” and evidence becomes difficult to produce, for both parties.
Secondly, any claim that may have been within the limitation period of six years lacks any evidential support. The tenant provided minimal evidence. While the tenant objected to the landlord providing photos that showed the premises in a positive light, the obvious counter to the landlord doing what seems prudent from its perspective is for the tenant to provide photos of the claimed failures.
There is no evidence of the tenant raising maintenance issues that were not addressed by the landlord. The tenant has practical skills that meant a mutually agreeable approach at times saw work completed by the tenant with a rent rebate or reduction made.
As an aside, the landlord had sought to increase the rent to $680.00 at a later stage of the tenancy. This was negotiated down by $20.00 to $660.00 by the tenant to reflect what he considered a fairer rent for the premises as presented. Loss of amenity
The second aspect of the tenant application was the continued use of the landlord for a section of the double garage to store items. These appear to be mainly cabinetry of sorts, sourced from, or for, one of the two premises at this address for later use. The items were there at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant submitted this was accepted as a temporary arrangement but the items were never removed. They remained there at the end of the tenancy, and a recent photo shows the continued use of the landlord for storage during the new tenancy.
There is no written term or agreement regarding the use of the garage. However, the tenant’s claim that rent was inclusive of full use of the garage is not an automatic conclusion. It is not unusual for a landlord to retain some space at the premises. Ideally this is clearly recorded in the tenancy agreement.
In the absence of any specific term in the tenancy agreement, or later, I need to consider if the use of some of the garage area for storage by the landlord over the ten-year tenancy was an implied term.
Implied terms are contract terms that are not expressly stated but are assumed to be part of an agreement based on the circumstances, conduct of the parties, or legal principles. These terms can be implied by law, custom, or the presumed intentions of the parties involved. They are legally binding, just like express terms, and can fill gaps where the written contract is silent or unclear.
Given the clear ability of the tenant to negotiate with the landlord work for rent, as well as a reduction in a proposed increase later in the tenancy, it would have been open to request a temporary rent reduction during the claimed initial temporary loss of amenity, reflecting the now claimed loss of amenity. In his application he claims. Some evidence of a request by the tenant for the landlord to remove the items, being an assertion of the perceived right to use the full garage may have assisted the claim of the tenant.
I consider the continued use by the landlord for storage of the garage, in part, is an implied term of the tenancy and no compensation is awarded to the tenant. Even if wrong, the limitation period is a further challenge to any tenant success. Conclusion
The tenant has failed to evidence any claim as a landlord failure that should attract any order for compensation. The limitation period applies for many of the issues raised and they should have been the subject of an appropriate application at the time, if so merited.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5137931 — Rent arrears at 6 Glenlea Place, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5137931 — Rent arrears at 6 Glenlea Place, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Did the landlord fail to maintain?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions