What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426881 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,380.00 immediately, being rent

How much money was awarded in case 5426881?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426881?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13559148-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426881 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,380.00 immediately, being rent

How much money was awarded in case 5426881?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426881?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13559148-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Arcus Street, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426881 — Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,380.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 17 April 2025.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Jeffares, the landlord, and Ms Garner, representing the landlord, both attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and outgoings following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenancy ended on 17 April 2025.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 17 April 2025, which is $3,380.00.
The landlord initially claimed $913.60 for water rates owing by the tenant. This amount altered to $858.56, as set out below, as the hearing progressed and it was pointed out to the landlord that only consumption charges for water were owing by the tenant, not any fixed supply charges, pursuant to section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed water rates from the tenant for the following water rates invoices from the Whangarei District Council, copies of which were provided: a. Invoice dated 27 April 2023 for the period 17 October 2022 to 21 April 2023. The invoice stated that consumed water charges were $312.09. The landlord said they paid $324.51 for this bill and deducted the supply charge on the bill to reach a claimed amount for this period of $306.18. b. Invoice dated 23 April 2024 for the period 19 October 2023 to 5 April 2024 with consumption charges showing of $176.55. The landlord said they paid $372.52 for this bill and deducted the supply charge on the invoice to reach a claimed amount for this period of $354.94. c. There was also an invoice dated 26 October 2023 that covered the period from 19 October 2023 to 21 April 2023, which the landlord said they were not claiming, and they believed this water bill was not paid and would have rolled onto the next invoice dated 23 April 2024 dealt with above. d. Invoice dated 29 October 2024 covering the period from 5 April 2024 to 1 October 2024 with consumed water charges totalling $227.44. There was a $30.00 credit showing on this invoice. The landlord said they paid $216.57 and deducted the supply charge on the invoice from the amount they paid to reach a claimed amount for this period of $197.44.
The landlord also provided confirmation of the amounts they paid to the local Council for the water bills.
The landlord further provided a couple of water bill summaries from the Whangarei District Council, listing the direct debits paid over time, some of which were dishonoured. The landlord said they told the tenant about the water bills and that the tenant had set up a regular direct debit to the Council, some payments of which were dishonoured.
The landlord acknowledged they did not have or provide a water ledger setting out the water invoices sent to the tenant and listing the payments made by the tenant towards the water invoices over the tenancy period.
The landlord said they had not claimed these water bills earlier as they were not aware they could do so, and they tried to sort things out directly with the tenant at the time. The landlord said the water bills are usually issued by the Council on a 6-monthly basis and said they have just paid the water bill that covered the period from 1 October 2024 to the end of the tenancy but are not claiming this.
Whilst the landlord provided the water invoices that are listed above and two water summaries which list payments made towards the Council generally, the landlord did not provide a water ledger which would have shown the water invoices issued to the tenant and the payments made by only the tenant towards the water bills.
The tenancy began in April 2013, but the landlord said they were only claiming water rates from the time records were kept from 24 June 2020. However, there were no claims from the landlord for water from June 2020 to 17 October 2022, nor was this period discussed in the hearing or in documents provided by the landlord.
As there is no water ledger provided for the tenancy period, nor any other water invoices that might be appropriate to such a ledger to prove the balance owing by the tenant for water, and given the period claimed only starts on 17 October 2022 but the tenancy began in 2013, nor does the claimed period even start in June 2020 when the landlord said better records were kept, and given the lack of clear evidence summarising the payments made by only the tenant and the invoices issued to the tenant, that would have been included in a detailed water ledger, and which may have indicated any balance owing by the tenant or any credit to the tenant prior to the period for which the landlord claimed water bills, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim and so dismiss the claim for outgoings.

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. Carpet cleaning
The landlord said the tenant did not clean the carpet before leaving the property. They claimed $132.00 for the cost of carpet cleaning. The landlord provided a few photographs of the lounge carpet, which they said were taken at the end of the tenancy, around 17 April 2025. The photographs provided showed some red staining and a water stain on the lounge carpet. The landlord said other carpets in the other rooms also needed to be cleaned but they did not have or provide any photographs of the carpets in these rooms. There were no photographs provided either of the condition of the carpets at the start of the tenancy. However, during the hearing the landlord showed on the video screen a property checklist document of the property at the start of the tenancy that said the lounge carpets were in good condition and explained that the carpets were new at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided some general rates to hire a Rug Doctor carpet cleaner, which they said they got from the Rug Doctor website. The landlord did not have a receipt for any hire of a Rug Doctor carpet cleaner, as the landlord said the carpet was not cleaned when the tenancy ended, as a new tenant decided to take the property just as it was. They indicated the new tenant moved into the property about a month ago and the carpets were not cleaned with a Rug Doctor before then.
As the carpets have not been cleaned, it is unlikely the carpets will now need to be cleaned as a new tenant has already moved into the property, and as the landlord did not provide any receipt to show the cost claimed by them for this service, which has not been carried out in any event, the landlord has not incurred any actual carpet cost and so I dismiss this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Broken window
The landlord said the tenant’s child broke a bedroom window during the tenancy. The landlord said there was a crack in the window, that the landlord repaired the window and only charged for the materials purchased for this repair. The landlord claimed $78.52 for new window glass, putty and other materials required for the repair and provided receipts for the amount claimed.
However, the landlord said they did not have any photographs of the broken window. Nor was there any evidence provided of the condition of the window at the start of the tenancy.
Given the lack of photographs showing a broken window at the end of the tenancy or the condition of the window at the start of the tenancy, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove the window was broken during the tenancy. As such, I dismiss this claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426881 — Rent arrears at 2 Arcus Street, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426881 — Rent arrears at 2 Arcus Street, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions