What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5259580?

The tribunal order states: Kawaljit Singh and Sukhman Kaur to pay Rent 2.0 Limited As Agent For Owner

How much money was awarded in case 5259580?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $91.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259580?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12201386-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5259580?

The tribunal order states: Kawaljit Singh and Sukhman Kaur to pay Rent 2.0 Limited As Agent For Owner

How much money was awarded in case 5259580?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $91.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259580?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12201386-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50A Miles Crescent, Newlands, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259580 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259580 — net $141.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$91.45	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$50.00	nd tidy standard was in the pantry of the kitchen. The tenant is ordered to pay $50.00 towards that cleaning.
Net award	$141.45
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$141.45

Kawaljit Singh and Sukhman Kaur to pay Rent 2.0 Limited As Agent For Owner $141.45 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6083639-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Rent 2.0 Limited As Agent For Owner: $141.45 Kawaljit Singh and Sukhman Kaur: $1,658.55

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.

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 seeks release of the bond.

The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. In this case, the burden of proof is on the landlord.

The landlord must prove its claim on what is called the “balance of probabilities.” The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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 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.” (the emphasis is mine).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 29 December 2024. The landlord took over the management of the premises in September 2024. The landlord provided a rent summary commencing on the 1st of September 2024. The rent summary indicated that there was a balance of $731.43 owing at the end of the tenancy

The tenants provided a copy of their bank statement showing payments going to the landlord on a fortnightly basis throughout the term of the tenancy from its commencement in November 2022 until the end of the tenancy. In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the tenant, which is evidence for the full period of the rental. It may be that there was some discrepancy in the record keeping of the previous property managers. The tenant is ordered to pay $91.43 being rent for the final day of the tenancy,

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants provided photos of the premises showing the condition at the commencement of the tenancy. They also provided further photos showing the condition at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord seeks compensation of $451.38 for cleaning. The invoice indicates that this was for a “deep clean”.

The photos provided show that the only area which required some cleaning to achieve a reasonably clean and tidy standard was in the pantry of the kitchen. The tenant is ordered to pay $50.00 towards that cleaning. The photos otherwise show that the premises have been left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenants. This finding also relates to the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning. The photos show that the carpets have been left reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord seeks $89.13 for the rehanging of curtains. The photos provided by the tenants from the commencement of the tenancy, show that the curtains had not been hung correctly at that time. The claim for compensation is dismissed.

The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and no order is made for the reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259580 — net $141.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$91.45	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$50.00	nd tidy standard was in the pantry of the kitchen. The tenant is ordered to pay $50.00 towards that cleaning.
Net award	$141.45
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$141.45

Order

Kawaljit Singh and Sukhman Kaur to pay Rent 2.0 Limited As Agent For Owner $141.45 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (6083639-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Rent 2.0 Limited As Agent For Owner: $141.45 Kawaljit Singh and Sukhman Kaur: $1,658.55

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
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 seeks release of the bond.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. In this case, the burden of proof is on the landlord.
The landlord must prove its claim on what is called the “balance of probabilities.” The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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 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.” (the emphasis is mine).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 29 December 2024. The landlord took over the management of the premises in September 2024. The landlord provided a rent summary commencing on the 1st of September 2024. The rent summary indicated that there was a balance of $731.43 owing at the end of the tenancy
The tenants provided a copy of their bank statement showing payments going to the landlord on a fortnightly basis throughout the term of the tenancy from its commencement in November 2022 until the end of the tenancy. In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the tenant, which is evidence for the full period of the rental. It may be that there was some discrepancy in the record keeping of the previous property managers. The tenant is ordered to pay $91.43 being rent for the final day of the tenancy,

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants provided photos of the premises showing the condition at the commencement of the tenancy. They also provided further photos showing the condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord seeks compensation of $451.38 for cleaning. The invoice indicates that this was for a “deep clean”.
The photos provided show that the only area which required some cleaning to achieve a reasonably clean and tidy standard was in the pantry of the kitchen. The tenant is ordered to pay $50.00 towards that cleaning. The photos otherwise show that the premises have been left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenants. This finding also relates to the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning. The photos show that the carpets have been left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord seeks $89.13 for the rehanging of curtains. The photos provided by the tenants from the commencement of the tenancy, show that the curtains had not been hung correctly at that time. The claim for compensation is dismissed.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and no order is made for the reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259580 — Rent arrears at 50A Miles Crescent, Newlands, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259580 — Rent arrears at 50A Miles Crescent, Newlands, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions