What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421514 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5421514?

Rent Overpayment: $576.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $656.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421514?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13675459-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421514 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5421514?

Rent Overpayment: $576.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $656.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421514?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13675459-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421514 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421514 — net $80.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal: Exterior	$656.84		Rubbish removal: Exterior
Rent overpayment		$576.00	Rent overpayment
Total award	$656.84	$576.00
Net award	$80.84
Bond	$168.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$80.84

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond, and following the end 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, 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.

I am satisfied that the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.

Are the rubbish costs reasonable?

The background is that the tenant had been tenanting the property for about 23 years. The landlord ended the tenancy to demolish the premises and clear the land in preparation for a new development.

After the tenancy ended the landlord removed items that the tenant had left behind both inside and outside the premises. The tenant said that she went back to remove items she had left inside but the premises was locked.

The question that the tenant raised was why the landlord had to remove her items before the premises was demolished and removed to the tip. It is a reasonable question to ask. The items that she left behind were household items that would end up in the tip along with the demolished premises.

The landlord did not have the information to be able to answer why the tenant’s items had to be removed separately when the whole house was being taken to the tip.

Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.

It is the landlord’s burden to prove that the loss from the tenant’s breach was mitigated. I would need to see why the tenant’s goods had to be removed separately and not as part of the removal of everything that existed on the land at the end of the tenancy. The best evidence would be a quote to remove the items separately and the cost to remove them as part of the house demolition and land clearance.

Having said that, it should not be assumed that there was no cost to remove the items left by the tenant. The photos show the items left behind both inside and outside.

The Tribunal does not the evidence to accurately assess what the mitigated loss amounts to. I have taken into account the facts and the merits and justice of the case and have determined that the cost of the removal of the exterior rubbish should be the maximum amount the tenant should pay for rubbish removal.

There is a rent credit of $576.00 to be applied and a bond of $168.00 that is available. This results in a split bond allocated to the parties as set out in the order. Suppression

The Tribunal may, 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. (s.95A(4).

I am satisfied that the facts of the case do not require the tenant’s name to be published and there is no public interest in the name of the tenant being published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421514 — net $80.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal: Exterior	$656.84		Rubbish removal: Exterior
Rent overpayment		$576.00	Rent overpayment
Total award	$656.84	$576.00
Net award	$80.84
Bond	$168.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$80.84

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenants is to pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $80.84 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond, and following the end 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, 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.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.

Are the rubbish costs reasonable?

The background is that the tenant had been tenanting the property for about 23 years. The landlord ended the tenancy to demolish the premises and clear the land in preparation for a new development.
After the tenancy ended the landlord removed items that the tenant had left behind both inside and outside the premises. The tenant said that she went back to remove items she had left inside but the premises was locked.
The question that the tenant raised was why the landlord had to remove her items before the premises was demolished and removed to the tip. It is a reasonable question to ask. The items that she left behind were household items that would end up in the tip along with the demolished premises.
The landlord did not have the information to be able to answer why the tenant’s items had to be removed separately when the whole house was being taken to the tip.
Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
It is the landlord’s burden to prove that the loss from the tenant’s breach was mitigated. I would need to see why the tenant’s goods had to be removed separately and not as part of the removal of everything that existed on the land at the end of the tenancy. The best evidence would be a quote to remove the items separately and the cost to remove them as part of the house demolition and land clearance.
Having said that, it should not be assumed that there was no cost to remove the items left by the tenant. The photos show the items left behind both inside and outside.
The Tribunal does not the evidence to accurately assess what the mitigated loss amounts to. I have taken into account the facts and the merits and justice of the case and have determined that the cost of the removal of the exterior rubbish should be the maximum amount the tenant should pay for rubbish removal.
There is a rent credit of $576.00 to be applied and a bond of $168.00 that is available. This results in a split bond allocated to the parties as set out in the order. Suppression
The Tribunal may, 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. (s.95A(4).
I am satisfied that the facts of the case do not require the tenant’s name to be published and there is no public interest in the name of the tenant being published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421514 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421514 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the rubbish costs reasonable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the rubbish costs reasonable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions