What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327063 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Rentals.Co.Nz Limited $1,248.50 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5327063?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,220.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327063?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327063?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12680441-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327063 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Rentals.Co.Nz Limited $1,248.50 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5327063?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,220.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327063?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327063?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12680441-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40 Raumanga Valley Road, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327063 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327063 — net $1,248.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$1,220.50	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,248.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,248.50

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.

The landlord has applied for compensation.

By way of background, the Tenants mother purchased this property in 2014. Her mother passed away on 12 August 2024 and the Tenants brothers were joint executors of the mother’s estate. The executors instructed the Applicants to manage the property. The Tenant moved into the property after the mother passed.

There is a preliminary issue I must determine, that is whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the RTA applies. Section 4 confirms the RTA applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.

The Tenant has raised that this was not a tenancy agreement because she never received a contract from the Applicants. The Tenant submitted her mother purchased the property in May 2014 so she could rent it from her rather than paying rent elsewhere. When the Tenant moved into the property in June 2014, she paid rent of $285.00 per week and no formal tenancy agreement was ever signed. Her mother stated before she passed that she wanted everything to remain the same in terms of tenants and property arrangements.

After her mother passed, the Tenant received a welcome letter from the Applicants, but no Tenancy agreement was sent. She was then asked to consider a rent increase due to the market rent. She submits this was against what her mother had wished. She was then referred to as the “owner occupier and Tenant” by her brothers from 17 August 2024. She understood she had to continue paying rent into the same bank account. If there were any repairs required, she contacted her brothers as executors of her mothers estate. The Applicants attended to conduct property inspections every month. The Tenant paid rent weekly and the Landlord would provide notice to the Tenant before they attended the property. The Tenant stated she was bullied into this agreement by her brothers.

The Landlord submitted the Tenant refused to sign a Tenancy Agreement but there was a verbal agreement. She paid rent and the Applicants had signed a management agreement with the executors. The landlord submitted they had an affidavit from the Tenants late mother which confirmed that the Tenant was aware of the rental arrangement. The Landlord had provided emails which showed the Tenant referring to the rent summary and vacate letter.

Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement

Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply. The Tenant considers this was a family arrangement which meets the exemption under clause 5(n) of the RTA.

Section 5(1)(n) RTA provides “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”.

In considering the evidence, I find that a tenancy agreement was established despite the absence of a written document. The Tenant occupied a residential premises and paid weekly rent in consideration for that occupation. The arrangement also displayed characteristics typical of a tenancy, including the issuing of a notice to vacate, the Landlord providing notice of property inspections, and the Tenant notifying the Executor regarding necessary repairs. I am satisfied this arrangement does not fall within an exception, as such exceptions apply only where the Landlord or a member of their family resides concurrently in the premises as their principal home during the tenancy. In this case, the Tenant was the sole Tenant and whilst her daughter lived there, she was not a Tenant liable for paying rent etc.

For this reason, I find the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the landlords claim.

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 submitted that the Tenant did not leave the gardens tidy at the end of the tenancy. It required work to bring up to a reasonable standard which was outlined in an invoice they presented.

The Tenant submitted that while the garden was overgrown and a broken trampoline remained on the lawn, she did not consider it excessively overgrown but acknowledged it required attention. The trampoline belonged to her and she stated it was being repurposed as part of a new garden project using the Hugelkultur method.

In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant failed to leave the garden in a tidy condition. By her own admission, the trampoline remained, and the garden required further tending. The Landlord’s invoice corroborates that remedial work was necessary.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As the Landlord has been wholly successful in their claim, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327063 — net $1,248.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$1,220.50	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,248.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,248.50

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.

The landlord has applied for compensation.

For this reason, I find the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the landlords claim.

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

The Landlord submitted that the Tenant did not leave the gardens tidy at the end of the tenancy. It required work to bring up to a reasonable standard which was outlined in an invoice they presented.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As the Landlord has been wholly successful in their claim, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327063 — Tenancy dispute at 40 Raumanga Valley Road, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327063 — Tenancy dispute at 40 Raumanga Valley Road, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Order

Reasons

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