What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5179251 about?

The tribunal order states: Grace West to pay The Estate of Sandra Glen and John David Orchard

How much money was awarded in case 5179251?

Rent Arrears: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5179251?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5179251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13158573-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5179251 about?

The tribunal order states: Grace West to pay The Estate of Sandra Glen and John David Orchard

How much money was awarded in case 5179251?

Rent Arrears: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5179251?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5179251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13158573-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

153A Redwood Street, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5179251 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5179251 — net $2,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,500.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning, locks and rubbish removal (capped by landlord	$500.00	Cleaning, locks and rubbish removal (capped by landlord
Net award	$2,000.00
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,000.00

Order

Grace West to pay The Estate of Sandra Glen and John David Orchard $2,000.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 () to The Estate of Sandra Glen and John David Orchard immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.
This was a continuation hearing. If neither party had attended, I had already considered that the previous hearing and written submissions would have justified an order on the papers. This consideration was prompted by the late arrival of the landlord into the conference. Such consideration became moot with his appearance.
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 tenant sought the return of the bond.
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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 17 January 2025. The landlord claimed it was ended without notice and sought 21 days rent in-lieu of notice.
The tenant had stated that a verbal notice had been given to the late Sandra Glen some five months earlier, when they met in public.
Section 51(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires a notice to be in writing and provide the date of termination.
In the absence of clear evidence of any notice, I accept the landlord was not given correct notice and is entitled to rent in-lieu of notice. This is sum of $1,500.00 is awarded.

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. T
The tenant did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The tenant submissions were inconsistent on certain disputed facts. She stated the keys were all left inside on exit but later claimed to have returned with the intention of cleaning. How that might occur if all keys had been left inside
The landlord provided photos and a breakdown of costs that exceeded the capped sum of $500.00 by some margin. Given the capped sum as sought, I am satisfied the costs claimed are reasonable and supported by evidence. I award $500.00 to the costs of cleaning, rubbish removal and locks. The application filing fee is also factored into the award. The tenant application
The bond is awarded to the landlord. The failure to lodge the bond was raised. No formal application for an order for exemplary damages was made but even if so, I would not consider any such order applicable here.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
The passing of Sandra Glen prevents any explanation of the omission. Once made aware, the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre by her Estate.
There was reference to failures to maintain, as well as tenant funded improvements. Neither have been substantiated but I note the lack of communication includes no increase in rent over the four year period with an absence of any evidence of tenant notices regarding maintenance. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in her application. As she has been unsuccessful, no suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5179251 — net $2,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,500.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning, locks and rubbish removal (capped by landlord	$500.00	Cleaning, locks and rubbish removal (capped by landlord
Net award	$2,000.00
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,000.00

Order

Grace West to pay The Estate of Sandra Glen and John David Orchard $2,000.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 () to The Estate of Sandra Glen and John David Orchard immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.
This was a continuation hearing. If neither party had attended, I had already considered that the previous hearing and written submissions would have justified an order on the papers. This consideration was prompted by the late arrival of the landlord into the conference. Such consideration became moot with his appearance.
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 tenant sought the return of the bond.
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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 17 January 2025. The landlord claimed it was ended without notice and sought 21 days rent in-lieu of notice.
The tenant had stated that a verbal notice had been given to the late Sandra Glen some five months earlier, when they met in public.
Section 51(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires a notice to be in writing and provide the date of termination.
In the absence of clear evidence of any notice, I accept the landlord was not given correct notice and is entitled to rent in-lieu of notice. This is sum of $1,500.00 is awarded.

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. T
The tenant did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The tenant submissions were inconsistent on certain disputed facts. She stated the keys were all left inside on exit but later claimed to have returned with the intention of cleaning. How that might occur if all keys had been left inside
The landlord provided photos and a breakdown of costs that exceeded the capped sum of $500.00 by some margin. Given the capped sum as sought, I am satisfied the costs claimed are reasonable and supported by evidence. I award $500.00 to the costs of cleaning, rubbish removal and locks. The application filing fee is also factored into the award. The tenant application
The bond is awarded to the landlord. The failure to lodge the bond was raised. No formal application for an order for exemplary damages was made but even if so, I would not consider any such order applicable here.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it.
The passing of Sandra Glen prevents any explanation of the omission. Once made aware, the bond was lodged with the Bond Centre by her Estate.
There was reference to failures to maintain, as well as tenant funded improvements. Neither have been substantiated but I note the lack of communication includes no increase in rent over the four year period with an absence of any evidence of tenant notices regarding maintenance. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in her application. As she has been unsuccessful, no suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5179251 — Rent arrears at 153A Redwood Street, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5179251 — Rent arrears at 153A Redwood Street, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions