What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4618389?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4618389?

Rent Arrears: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4618389?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4618389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9234008-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4618389?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4618389?

Rent Arrears: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4618389?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4618389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9234008-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

46 Donald Street, Featherston, Wairarapa 5710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4618389 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4618389 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,200.00	Rent arrears
Net award	$600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$600.00

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $600.00 (5984916-004) to Karen Anne Coltman immediately.
MIke Fennessy must pay Karen Anne Coltman $600.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,200.00 Total award$1,200.00 Minus bond-$600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$600.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The tenancy commenced on 9 May 2023, and it is plain this short duration tenancy was rocky for the parties. The evidence is that Mr Fennessy left the premises on 27 June. The landlord has now applied for compensation for damage to the floor, rent in lieu of notice, and compensation for excess power usage.
The tenant reports a range of claims he has against the landlord. As I noted at the hearing, if the tenant is wanting to advance any claims, he needs to file his own application with the Tribunal. Compensation for floor damage
The landlord’s position is that the floor was stained by the tenant, which appears to be an oil or other substance, that has seeped through the polyurethane flooring and stained the underlying wood. The landlord advised that in order to repair the floor, the floor would need to be sanded. The landlord seeks compensation of $500.00 toward the floor remediation.
The tenant states that the floor was an older rustic floor, and he disputes damaging the floor as claimed. The tenant submitted that there have been no photographs provided which show the floor prior to the tenancy to confirm the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord states there was rice on the floor as if something had been thrown on the floor. The landlord confirmed that she does not have any pre- tenancy photographs of the floor. Analysis
With any claim for damage before the Tenancy Tribunal, it is firstly for the landlord to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it is beyond fair wear and tear. If that is established, then the onus shifts to the tenant, and the tenant must prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
It is important to recognise that the onus for establishing any claim, sits with the person making it. That means that if the landlord is wishing to have compensation for floor damage for example, it is the landlord who must prove that there has been a breach on the part of the tenant, for which compensation can be ordered.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with two photographs which show a polished wooden floor, and broadly in two areas there are marks on the floor, which I accept would be consistent with some liquid or substance penetrating the polyurethane coating, and staining the underlying wood.
The difficulty however, is in determining whether that damage was caused by the tenant. In this case I have the landlord saying the damage was caused by the tenant, and I have the tenant saying that he did not cause the damage. I have been unable to see any compelling reason why I should accept one statement over the other. That being the case, I would have to conclude that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence showing that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I make the observation for completeness, that I do not have a pre-let inspection report, which is commonly seen in order for tenants and landlords to document any pre-existing damage-or the absence of damage. Furthermore, it is often seen in this jurisdiction that tenants and landlords will take photographs before a tenancy commences, in order to provide a solid record of the state of the premises before the tenancy commenced, and again there are no such photographs here.
The end result must be that I conclude this claim has not been established, so must be dismissed. Rent in lieu of notice
The landlord states that on 27 June the tenant left the premises without notice being given. The landlord states the rent was paid to the Monday 26 June.
In response the tenant states he paid the landlord rent in cash, and when the landlord took him to the Tenancy Tribunal for not paying rent by automatic payment, he questioned Ms Coltman’s authenticity of being a landlord. The tenant states that he considers the tenancy is unlawful (not consented as a separate dwelling), and that it was unsafe. Mr Fennessy considers the tenancy agreement was an illegal contract. Mr Fennessy states that he consulted with the Fire Service and an electrician who considered there was an electrical fault in the wiring. The tenant states that he had given a notice to the landlord by text message around the electrical problem.
The landlord disputes that the issue with the electrical system is anything other than a bulb that needed replacement. Analysis
The landlord seeks compensation for the tenant departing the tenancy, without providing notice.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms the notice periods that are required in order to terminate a tenancy. For a tenant in a periodic tenancy like this, the notice is 28 days (section 51(2B)).
Section 51(3) sets out the requirements of a termination notice, which required that it be in writing and signed. That did not occur here, so the tenant has breached his obligation to the landlord. In any event even if notice was given, then the tenant would have needed to pay the rent for the remaining 28 day period.
The tenant’s position is that the premises were unconsented and unsafe. There is no evidence before me which proves that, I have received nothing from the council or a qualified person that would support that the premises could not be lived in.
I find this claim is established, and order the tenant to pay 28 days rent to the landlord in lieu of notice. The weekly rental is $300.00, so I order the tenant to pay the landlord the sum of $1,200.00. Power usage
The landlord considers that the tenant has used excessive power in the premises, and in doing so he would use the heat pump on high. The landlord considers that there has been a difference of about $300.00 to be ordered. The landlord confirmed that there was an agreement with the tenant that the power was provided by the landlord. The landlord confirmed there is a sub- meter, but she does not use it with the tenants.
The tenant says that there was a problem with the hot water system, and that accounts for the high power costs. Analysis
The usual situation that applies in tenancy law in New Zealand, is that tenants are liable for all outgoings that are attributable to their occupation of the premises. This is an expectation in the RTA. Normally the electricity to a tenancy is provided by way of a separate matter, and the tenants are billed directly by the power company. But that does not need to be the case, it is also not unusual to see electricity charges raised by way of a sub-meter, which these premises have, but is not used. It is also not particularly uncommon to see tenancies where there is an agreement between the landlord and tenant, that the landlord will provide power to the tenant within the rental, which I understand to be the case here. The RTA does allow tenants and landlords to contract out of the usual provisions of the RTA, as long as the contracting is not to the detriment of the tenant. To put that another way, it is entirely lawful for the landlord to agree to pay for the power, because that is an obligation more onerous for the landlord (see RTA section 11).
The landlord’s position is not that power has been used, but she considers that excess of power has been used by the tenant. The problem however, is that there is insufficient evidence to show that the agreement reached between the parties limited the amount of power that would be used by the tenant. At the hearing the landlord acknowledge that she would have some difficulties in establishing this claim, and I find that is the case. Because I have been unable to see that the tenant has breached some obligation he had to the landlord, this claim cannot succeed, and must be discussed.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party asks for it, if they have been wholly or substantially successful in the claim. In this case that is not the case for the landlord, so I cannot order name suppression to apply.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4618389 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,200.00	Rent arrears
Net award	$600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$600.00

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $600.00 (5984916-004) to Karen Anne Coltman immediately.
MIke Fennessy must pay Karen Anne Coltman $600.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,200.00 Total award$1,200.00 Minus bond-$600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$600.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The tenancy commenced on 9 May 2023, and it is plain this short duration tenancy was rocky for the parties. The evidence is that Mr Fennessy left the premises on 27 June. The landlord has now applied for compensation for damage to the floor, rent in lieu of notice, and compensation for excess power usage.
The tenant reports a range of claims he has against the landlord. As I noted at the hearing, if the tenant is wanting to advance any claims, he needs to file his own application with the Tribunal. Compensation for floor damage
The landlord’s position is that the floor was stained by the tenant, which appears to be an oil or other substance, that has seeped through the polyurethane flooring and stained the underlying wood. The landlord advised that in order to repair the floor, the floor would need to be sanded. The landlord seeks compensation of $500.00 toward the floor remediation.
The tenant states that the floor was an older rustic floor, and he disputes damaging the floor as claimed. The tenant submitted that there have been no photographs provided which show the floor prior to the tenancy to confirm the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord states there was rice on the floor as if something had been thrown on the floor. The landlord confirmed that she does not have any pre- tenancy photographs of the floor. Analysis
With any claim for damage before the Tenancy Tribunal, it is firstly for the landlord to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it is beyond fair wear and tear. If that is established, then the onus shifts to the tenant, and the tenant must prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
It is important to recognise that the onus for establishing any claim, sits with the person making it. That means that if the landlord is wishing to have compensation for floor damage for example, it is the landlord who must prove that there has been a breach on the part of the tenant, for which compensation can be ordered.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with two photographs which show a polished wooden floor, and broadly in two areas there are marks on the floor, which I accept would be consistent with some liquid or substance penetrating the polyurethane coating, and staining the underlying wood.
The difficulty however, is in determining whether that damage was caused by the tenant. In this case I have the landlord saying the damage was caused by the tenant, and I have the tenant saying that he did not cause the damage. I have been unable to see any compelling reason why I should accept one statement over the other. That being the case, I would have to conclude that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence showing that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I make the observation for completeness, that I do not have a pre-let inspection report, which is commonly seen in order for tenants and landlords to document any pre-existing damage-or the absence of damage. Furthermore, it is often seen in this jurisdiction that tenants and landlords will take photographs before a tenancy commences, in order to provide a solid record of the state of the premises before the tenancy commenced, and again there are no such photographs here.
The end result must be that I conclude this claim has not been established, so must be dismissed. Rent in lieu of notice
The landlord states that on 27 June the tenant left the premises without notice being given. The landlord states the rent was paid to the Monday 26 June.
In response the tenant states he paid the landlord rent in cash, and when the landlord took him to the Tenancy Tribunal for not paying rent by automatic payment, he questioned Ms Coltman’s authenticity of being a landlord. The tenant states that he considers the tenancy is unlawful (not consented as a separate dwelling), and that it was unsafe. Mr Fennessy considers the tenancy agreement was an illegal contract. Mr Fennessy states that he consulted with the Fire Service and an electrician who considered there was an electrical fault in the wiring. The tenant states that he had given a notice to the landlord by text message around the electrical problem.
The landlord disputes that the issue with the electrical system is anything other than a bulb that needed replacement. Analysis
The landlord seeks compensation for the tenant departing the tenancy, without providing notice.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms the notice periods that are required in order to terminate a tenancy. For a tenant in a periodic tenancy like this, the notice is 28 days (section 51(2B)).
Section 51(3) sets out the requirements of a termination notice, which required that it be in writing and signed. That did not occur here, so the tenant has breached his obligation to the landlord. In any event even if notice was given, then the tenant would have needed to pay the rent for the remaining 28 day period.
The tenant’s position is that the premises were unconsented and unsafe. There is no evidence before me which proves that, I have received nothing from the council or a qualified person that would support that the premises could not be lived in.
I find this claim is established, and order the tenant to pay 28 days rent to the landlord in lieu of notice. The weekly rental is $300.00, so I order the tenant to pay the landlord the sum of $1,200.00. Power usage
The landlord considers that the tenant has used excessive power in the premises, and in doing so he would use the heat pump on high. The landlord considers that there has been a difference of about $300.00 to be ordered. The landlord confirmed that there was an agreement with the tenant that the power was provided by the landlord. The landlord confirmed there is a sub- meter, but she does not use it with the tenants.
The tenant says that there was a problem with the hot water system, and that accounts for the high power costs. Analysis
The usual situation that applies in tenancy law in New Zealand, is that tenants are liable for all outgoings that are attributable to their occupation of the premises. This is an expectation in the RTA. Normally the electricity to a tenancy is provided by way of a separate matter, and the tenants are billed directly by the power company. But that does not need to be the case, it is also not unusual to see electricity charges raised by way of a sub-meter, which these premises have, but is not used. It is also not particularly uncommon to see tenancies where there is an agreement between the landlord and tenant, that the landlord will provide power to the tenant within the rental, which I understand to be the case here. The RTA does allow tenants and landlords to contract out of the usual provisions of the RTA, as long as the contracting is not to the detriment of the tenant. To put that another way, it is entirely lawful for the landlord to agree to pay for the power, because that is an obligation more onerous for the landlord (see RTA section 11).
The landlord’s position is not that power has been used, but she considers that excess of power has been used by the tenant. The problem however, is that there is insufficient evidence to show that the agreement reached between the parties limited the amount of power that would be used by the tenant. At the hearing the landlord acknowledge that she would have some difficulties in establishing this claim, and I find that is the case. Because I have been unable to see that the tenant has breached some obligation he had to the landlord, this claim cannot succeed, and must be discussed.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party asks for it, if they have been wholly or substantially successful in the claim. In this case that is not the case for the landlord, so I cannot order name suppression to apply.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4618389 — Rent arrears at 46 Donald Street, Featherston, Wairarapa 5710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4618389 — Rent arrears at 46 Donald Street, Featherston, Wairarapa 5710

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions