What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5263779?

The tribunal order states: Mark Vikki Iakopo and Mataina Ioane/Agasii must pay Gerd Sibilis $5,721.97

How much money was awarded in case 5263779?

Rent Arrears: $5,721.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5263779?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5263779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12133207-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5263779?

The tribunal order states: Mark Vikki Iakopo and Mataina Ioane/Agasii must pay Gerd Sibilis $5,721.97

How much money was awarded in case 5263779?

Rent Arrears: $5,721.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5263779?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5263779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12133207-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21A Pendlebury Street, Green Bay, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5263779 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5263779 — net $5,721.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 December 2023	$5,721.97	Rent arrears to 3 December 2023
Net award	$5,721.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,721.97

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5263779 — net $5,721.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 December 2023	$5,721.97	Rent arrears to 3 December 2023
Net award	$5,721.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,721.97

Order

Mark Vikki Iakopo and Mataina Ioane/Agasii must pay Gerd Sibilis $5,721.97 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, power arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The 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 likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.
In summary, 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA.
Section109(2)(b) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award any exemplary damages to the landlord as that this provision states that the landlord cannot apply for exemplary damages for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. This tenancy ended on 3 December 2023, considerably more than 12 months ago. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 1 September 2022 and ended on 3 December 2023. It ended abruptly after the tenant received an abusive email on 2 December 2023 that contained emotionally charged and racist language demanding rent arrears of $3,961.98 be paid immediately, telling the tenants they had to move out or he was making an application to the Tenancy Tribunal to evict them.
The tenants say that the landlord’s wife had entered into a repayment plan with them, and the rent records show that the tenants had been making an effort to pay the rent arrears off in instalments, in addition to paying their rent payments. The landlord was not happy with this arrangement and began sending abusive and racist emails to the tenants demanding payment of the rent arrears in a lump sum.
The landlord claimed he was not happy with the repayment plan his wife agreed to because he says he signed a letter for the tenants in support of them making a withdrawal from their KiwiSaver to clear the rent arrears in one go. He claims the tenants received this money and then used it for other purposes and did not clear the rent arrears. Further, he stated that he intends to continue to pursue the tenants for payment from their KiwiSaver accounts even though the tenants are under no obligation to withdraw money from their KiwiSaver accounts for this purpose.
The rent summary provided by the landlord claims that the tenants owed $,5878.40 to 6 December 2023 when his December 2023 emails to the male tenant claimed the tenants owed $3,961.98 to 3 December 2023.
The landlord did not produce bank statements to prove his rent summary was accurate.
Section 30(1) of the RTA provides: Every landlord under a tenancy to which this Act applies shall keep or cause to be kept proper business records showing— (a)all payments of rent paid by or on behalf of the tenant, sufficient to enable the landlord to comply within a reasonable time with any request made by the tenant under section 29(3); and (b) any amount by way of bond paid by or on behalf of the tenant on or after 1 May 1996.
Section 30(1A) states “The records must be kept for 7 tax years after the tax year to which they relate”.
The landlord’s submissions and filings in the Tribunal prove that he did not keep accurate and proper business records and that he created rent records in the format the Tribunal requires after the date he filed his application, being 15 May 2025. This is two years and eight months after the tenancy commenced and one year and five months after the tenancy ended. I am not satisfied that the landlord’s rent summary is accurate. However, the tenants accept liability for the $5,721.97 the landlord’s rent summary shows is owing to 3 December 2023.
The tenant offered to repay the rent arrears at $20.00, as that is all he can afford without getting into undue financial distress. The landlord refused to accept this repayment plan and stated that he will pursue the tenants through a debt collector to force them to pay the full amount owing in one lump sum from their KiwiSaver accounts.

Do the tenants owe the landlord four weeks rent in lieu of notice?

The landlord also sought four weeks rent in lieu of the 28 days’ notice, he says the tenants never gave him.
The tenant produced an email from the landlord dated 2 December 2023 telling the tenants to move out or he will go to the Tribunal to get an eviction order. The email contained abusive and racist language.
The tenants could not endure anymore of this type of conduct, so they did as instructed and moved out the next day, being 3 December 2023.
I find that in all the circumstances, the landlord’s email amounted to an unlawful termination of the tenancy and that the tenants did not abandon the premise without notice, as is being claimed by the landlord, but left as instructed the day after the landlord’s 2 December 2023 email.
The claim for four weeks rent in lieu of notice is dismissed.

How much is owed for power?

Section 39(3) of the RTA states “the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities”.
The landlord says the tenants never paid him for any of the power they consumed during the tenancy.
The landlord relied on an email dated 10 September 2022 to support his claim for $1,236.90 for power arrears. This email asks the tenants to “please fill in all forms and signs the rental agreement and the additional clauses I had sent you already on 04/09/2022 and today’s Additional Clauses to the Rental Agreement”. Clause 7 of the “Additional Clauses to the Rental Agreement” states “Tenants pay power according to their power meter at $0.30/kWh and water at $3.77/m3 according to the main water meter”. The tenants never agreed to this term and did not sign it as they did not agree with being charged at a fixed rate.
Power is not typically charged at the same price each month in New Zealand. The cost of electricity can vary based on factors like the time of year, the time of day, and the specific pricing plan chosen. Some power companies offer seasonal pricing, where rates fluctuate depending on the time of year, with higher prices during winter when demand is greater. Additionally, some companies offer "spot pricing" or "wholesale pricing," where the price you pay directly reflects the fluctuating wholesale market prices. Therefore, the landlord was seeking to rely on a fixed price without disclosing to the tenants what price he was paying for power from month to month. This casts serious doubt as to whether the $1,236.90 compensation being sought is an accurate reflection of the cost of the power the tenants consumed.
The landlord says he asked the tenants to give him the reading on an internal meter in their premise and that he based the $1,236.90 compensation on those readings.
The tenants claim the landlord never issued them with regular power invoices that showed the power usage and the rate the landlord had ben charged for that power or if the charges included the fixed charges or just the consumption charges. The landlord could not produce any such invoices or regular bills or emails to the tenants asking them to pay the power consumption for that month with a breakdown of those charges. I am satisfied from the evidence presented that the landlord did not regularly bill or invoice the tenants for their power consumption and then one year and five months after the tenancy ended, he is pursuing them for this cost that he has no accurate business records to prove.
A landlord has an obligation to mitigate their losses by ensuring they provide tenants with regular power invoices during the tenancy and then following the tenants up with 14-day notices if the tenants fail to make payment by the due date.
The landlord has rested on it laurels and is now seeking full compensation for the tenants’ power consumption, one year and five months after the tenancy ended, because the landlord did not put adequate systems in place to ensure he received payment of the power consumption at the end of each month during the tenancy.
I find that it would be unjust, inequitable and not in the interests of justice to allow the landlord to fail to invoice the tenants regularly for power consumption and then seek full compensation for the arrears at the end of the tenancy. It would also be inequitable for the Tribunal to award the landlord for any power consumption when he has failed to keep accurate business records and I cannot be certain what the tenants’ consumption was or how much the landlord paid for that power consumption.
I find that it would be inequitable to require the tenants to pay any of the power arrears claimed so far after the tenancy ended for the reasons set out above and dismiss the landlord’s claim accordingly.

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. 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 claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and seeks compensation of $1,250.00 for cleaning the premise at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord produced photographs of the premise at the end of the tenancy but had no comparison photographs from the beginning of the tenancy. Therefore, I can not be satisfied that the condition of the premise at the end of the tenancy was significantly different to the condition at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord says he has a document he wrote that says the house was reasonably clean and tidy when it was handed over to the tenants on 1 September 2022. I confirmed that what one person views as reasonably clean and tidy is not what another person considers to be reasonably clean and tidy and that I required comparison photographs.
The male tenant says he and his partner cleaned and tidied the house and had taken a video of the house on exit day. Given the significant delay in the landlord making this claim, the video has since been deleted as the tenants did not think they had a need to retain it. They say the landlord’s son did an exit inspection with them and indicated that the condition of the premise was acceptable.
I find that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. The claim is therefore dismissed.

Can the landlord claim interest on money owed by the tenant?

The landlord seeks interest on the money owed to him by the tenants for rent arrears pursuant to section 3 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016. Specifically, he relies on: a. Section 3(1) of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 which provides that “the primary purpose of this Act is to provide for the award of interest as compensation for a delay in the payment of debts, damages, and other money claims in respect of which civil proceedings are commenced”, and. b. Section 3(2)(a) of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 that states “interest is to be awarded on all money claims except those expressly excluded by this Act”.
Section 10(1) of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 states “In every money judgment, a court must award interest under this section as compensation for a delay in the payment of money”.
However, section 6 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 expressly says that Tribunals are excluded from the definition of “court” for the purposes of interpreting the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016.
Therefore, the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 does not apply to orders from the Tribunal and the RTA does not contain any provision that gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to award compensation to a party for any delay in the payment of money.
The landlord’s claim for interest on the rent arrears owed is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Reimbursement of the filing fees
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with his claims, I dismiss his application for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
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.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5263779 — Rent arrears at 21A Pendlebury Street, Green Bay, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5263779 — Rent arrears at 21A Pendlebury Street, Green Bay, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

Do the tenants owe the landlord four weeks rent in lieu of notice?

How much is owed for power?

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

Can the landlord claim interest on money owed by the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

How much is owed for rent?

Do the tenants owe the landlord four weeks rent in lieu of notice?

How much is owed for power?

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

Can the landlord claim interest on money owed by the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions