What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4632110?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4632110?

Rent Arrears: $1,026.97 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632110?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9418183-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4632110?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4632110?

Rent Arrears: $1,026.97 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632110?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9418183-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 50 Miro Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4632110 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632110 — net $1,226.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,026.97	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,226.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,226.97

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632110 — net $1,226.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,026.97	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,226.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,226.97

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal declines that application because neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding.
Wendy Beckett to pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $1,226.97 from the bond already released to the landlord, calculated as shown in table below:
Rentcare Property Management Limited to pay Wendy Beckett the sum of $1,173.03 immediately, being the balance of the bond held by the landlord.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, and the relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Both parties appeared at the hearing. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears$1,026.97 Rubbish removal$200.00 Total award$1,226.97 Bond$1,226.97$1,173.03
The tenancy is a fixed term tenancy, that was due to end on 21 July 2023.
The tenancy has ended and the landlord now seeks various costs and rent arrears from the tenant. The bond of $2,400.00 has already been released to the landlord, but I will need to take that into account with this order.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears. The landlord states the arrears are $1,026.97 as of 24 May 2023, being the final date of the fixed term tenancy (a new tenant moved in the next day).
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a rent ledger. I have no reason to consider that record to be incorrect, and the tenant has not suggested there are any problems with it.
However the tenants position is that she wanted to end the fixed term tenancy early, but the landlord would not engage about this.
The landlord said that she had tried to contact the tenant by telephone but was not successful. That is disputed by the tenant.
It is normally the case with a fixed term tenancy, that the tenancy will run to the end of the fixed term period, which is 21 July 2023 in this case. The tenant would normally be liable for rent until that end date. However, there are some options the tenant has to get out of the tenancy early, that includes that they can agree with the landlord that the tenancy could end early, get an order from the Tenancy Tribunal ending the tenancy early, or assigned the tenancy to another tenant. Only the first situations applied here.
As I noted to the parties during the hearing, some of the communications from the landlord in relation to the tenants ability to assign the tenancy were incorrect. What an assignment of the tenancy would mean, is in affect the tenancy is transferred from Ms Beckett to a new tenant. Ms Beckett’s responsibilities as the tenant would end on the day of the assignment. But in order for there to be a valid assignment of the tenancy, the tenant must apply to the landlord in writing giving the details of the new tenant to the landlord. The tenant did not do that, and it must therefore follow that the tenant has not complied with the necessary process in order to have the tenancy assigned to a replacement tenant.
In the circumstances the tenancy was not assigned to another person, and the tenant will be liable for rent until the replacement tenant subsequently moved in, which I accept was on 25 May 2023. The rent arrears order is made in full.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks $506.00 for the removal of a plastic paddling pool and lawn clippings, and bags or rubbish.
The tenant accepts there was a single bag of rubbish on the premises and agrees she is liable for that. The tenant does not know what was meant by a paddling pool, and the tenant disputes leaving a pile of lawn clipping.
When I consider the photographs provided, I consider it more likely than not that a blue plastic paddling pool was left on the tenancy. As I noted to the parties, the pool appeared to be used as a water feature of sorts, there were rocks placed around it, and it was full of water. I accept that is more likely than not that was left at the end of the tenancy. I also accept there was a single bag of rubbish, there is no evidence to show more than that. However I could not see any evidence of lawn clippings in the photograph, perhaps they were removed earlier, but there is otherwise a dispute between the landlord and tenant, as to whether the clippings were there. It is ultimately for the landlord to prove its claim, and it has not done so in relation to the lawn clippings.
I find the tenant must be responsible for the cost and rubbish removal for the small plastic paddling pool and one bag of rubbish, but I do not accept that a cost of $506.00 for that work would be reasonable, it is excessive for the amount of cost that would reasonably be incurred by a commercial operator. It is fair that some level of compensation be provided, and I award $200 to remove those items. Cleaning
The landlord seeks cleaning costs of $253.00.
The tenant states that the premises had been cleaned when the premises were returned, the cupboards were wiped out and rangehood cleaned.
The landlord stated that there had been a broken window at the premises, the floors were sticky, the walls needed to be wiped down.
I have considered the photographs the landlord has provided, but I am not persuaded they show premises that are not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. I accept the Tenancy was not immaculately clean, but that is not the standard the tenant needs to return the premises. Again it is the applicant, the landlord, who must prove to the Tribunal that the premises were not clean, and the landlord has not done so. This claim is dismissed.

COMPENSATION

With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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. Landlords are liable for maintenance costs.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Doorstops
The landlord said that some door stops were missing or broken at the end of the tenancy. At the hearing the landlord could only point to one photograph of a broken door stop.
The tenant said that she has raised this during the inspections that the door stops were loose as they were screwed into the plaster board only.
The landlord must firstly prove that the doorstops required replacement or repair, from something more than fair wear and tear, and I do not consider the landlord has established that. The claim in relation to doorstops is dismissed. Roller blind
The landlord states that the roller blind was off the wall, and the mechanism was broken and needed repair.
The tenant disputes that the roller blind was missing, stating they were all intact and working when she left the premises.
The landlord states that she had been advised the roller blind was in the lounge, and the wood seen on page 4 of the photographs is related to the blind.
Again when I consider the photographs, I cannot see any evidence of a missing or broken roller blind. Certainly I can see a piece of wood on the floor, but it is not clear to me what that would relates to, and equally it is not clear that the wood is from the window. The tenant says that the wood was from a cot, and I have no reason not to accept that.
This claim has not been established, and it must be dismissed. Gate latch
The landlord said that the gate latch was broken.
The tenant said she notified the landlord that the latch was broken, and the gate was coming off the hinges from wind.
The landlord advised she could not find any communications around this.
The landlord has not established any work to the gate latch would be anything beyond maintenance, which is the landlords responsibility, and certainly the landlord has not proven the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Lounge shelf
The landlord seeks compensation for a hole to the lounge shelf (the photograph shows a large hole to the bottom shelf in the lounge).
The tenant said that this hole had been cut into the shelf when she moved in, and was covered.
The property manager advised that the owner advised this hole was not there at the start of the tenancy, but I have not received any evidence from the owner on this point.
The photographs provided by the landlord at the hearing of the premises before this tenancy started, we are off particularly poor quality, and while I can see the shelf, it is not immediately clear if there was an existing defect in the bottom shelf. As I noted to the parties at the hearing, where the cut out was, was immediately beneath a fibre Internet box (Optical Network Terminal), and I question whether the hole may have been cut in order to allow the technician access for wiring, but that is only supposition, I have no evidence of that one way or the other.
But again the landlord must prove that the damage was caused by the tenant, and the landlord has not done so. Window packers
The landlord seeks compensation for the replacement of window packers, and that the owner advised the windows were fine at the start of the tenancy but the windows were loose at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant considers this to maintenance.
There was no evidence before the Tribunal that would establish that the window Packers needed to be replaced, from anything other than fair wear and tear, or maintenance which is the landlord’s responsibility. This claim as dismissed.

BOND

The bond has already been released to the landlord, as above the amount that I consider the tenant liable for, is less than the amount of the bond. That means the landlord has received an over payment of the bond, that I ordered be returned to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4632110 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 50 Miro Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4632110 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 50 Miro Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

BOND

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

COMPENSATION

BOND

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions