What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4644255?

The tribunal order states: Zion Seuula, Fagamalama Matalavea and Taimalelagi Tuatagaloa to pay Eric

How much money was awarded in case 4644255?

Rent Arrears: $582.84 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $155.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644255?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9627485-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4644255?

The tribunal order states: Zion Seuula, Fagamalama Matalavea and Taimalelagi Tuatagaloa to pay Eric

How much money was awarded in case 4644255?

Rent Arrears: $582.84 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $155.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644255?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9627485-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40 Clayton Avenue, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4644255 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644255 — net $738.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (between 26 May 2023 and 31 May 2023	$582.84	Rent arrears (between 26 May 2023 and 31 May 2023
Water rates	$155.43	Water rates
Net award	$738.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$738.27

Order

Zion Seuula, Fagamalama Matalavea and Taimalelagi Tuatagaloa to pay Eric Rohan Dimbulane and Sarah Esther Dimbulane $738.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr. Dimbulane, one of the landlords, was present, while Ms. Dimbulane, the other landlord, was absent as she was out of Auckland.
The tenant, Mr. Seuula, and Ms. Tuatagaloa were present, but Ms. Matalavea was not present due to a family emergency.
Ms. Matalavea had applied to appoint a representative, but I declined her application as she couldn't satisfy me that her representative had sufficient knowledge of the case and authority to bind her under section 93(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”).
Since the parties involved have equal liability for the outcome of the hearing, I decided to continue the hearing despite the absence of Ms. Matalavea and Ms. Dimbulane.
Mr. Seuula had asked the landlord, who refused, to refund his bond of $2,720. Mr. Seuula then applied to the Tribunal for an Order for the release of the bond.
The landlord, in response to Mr. Seuula's application, applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee at the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Rent arrears

It is not disputed that the tenancy ended on 25 May 2023.
However, a dispute arose regarding whether the tenant is liable for rent for the period of six days between 26 May and 31 May 2023, which amounts to $582.84.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not return the keys on 25 May 2023, and therefore, the tenant continued to possess the property until 31 May 2023. The final inspection was completed on 31 May 2023, and the tenant returned the keys to the landlord on the same day.
The tenant did not deny keeping the keys until 31 May 2023, stating that they needed the keys to repair a window and do some gardening work. They claimed that they believed they acted in good faith.
According to Mr. Seuula's evidence, Ms Dimbulane said that the tenant could keep the keys until everything inside the property was fixed, including a broken window. Mr. Seuula also added that they couldn't mow the lawn between 29 May 2023 and 31 May 2023 due to bad weather.
While I acknowledge that the tenant's intention was not to retain possession of the property, they kept the keys to gain access and perform necessary repairs and gardening so the property is returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition under section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”). However, the law is clear on this point. Section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA states that “the tenant shall on termination of the tenancy return to the landlord all keys ... provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant."
In other words, the tenancy does not end or terminate until the tenant returns all the keys to the landlord.
Therefore, the tenancy continued from 26 May to 31 May 2023 for a further six days, and the tenant is responsible for the rent arrears of $582.84. Water rates
The parties agreed in the hearing that the water rates owed to the landlord was $155.43.

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.
The landlord alleged the tenant damaged the walls in two rooms, which resulted in a repair cost of $805. However, the landlord could not provide any pre- tenancy inspection photos. Nor did the landlord provide a pre-tenancy inspection report.
The tenant denied being responsible for the damage to the walls and claimed that the damage was already present when they moved in.
The tenant submitted evidence that the damage to one of the rooms was pre- existing, which raised doubts about the damage in the second room being caused during the tenancy. The absence of pre-tenancy inspection photos also added to the uncertainty of the landlord's claim.
Despite this, the landlord relied on a signed statement from Ms Matalavea, which stated “wall paint & hole in room (sic) to be discussed & agreed”. The landlord argued the signed statement by Ms Matalavea was conclusive that she accepted responsibility for the damages.
I do not accept this submission because the statement only suggests the parties acknowledged wall paint & hole in room (sic) to be discussed & agreed. In my view, none of the words suggest the tenant accepted the liability of wall paint and hole in rooms apart from agreeing “to discuss and to agree”.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the tenant caused the damage during the tenancy, and the landlord's claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Both parties were successful in their application before me.
Accordingly, costs fall where they lie.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644255 — net $738.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (between 26 May 2023 and 31 May 2023	$582.84	Rent arrears (between 26 May 2023 and 31 May 2023
Water rates	$155.43	Water rates
Net award	$738.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$738.27

Order

Zion Seuula, Fagamalama Matalavea and Taimalelagi Tuatagaloa to pay Eric Rohan Dimbulane and Sarah Esther Dimbulane $738.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr. Dimbulane, one of the landlords, was present, while Ms. Dimbulane, the other landlord, was absent as she was out of Auckland.
The tenant, Mr. Seuula, and Ms. Tuatagaloa were present, but Ms. Matalavea was not present due to a family emergency.
Ms. Matalavea had applied to appoint a representative, but I declined her application as she couldn't satisfy me that her representative had sufficient knowledge of the case and authority to bind her under section 93(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”).
Since the parties involved have equal liability for the outcome of the hearing, I decided to continue the hearing despite the absence of Ms. Matalavea and Ms. Dimbulane.
Mr. Seuula had asked the landlord, who refused, to refund his bond of $2,720. Mr. Seuula then applied to the Tribunal for an Order for the release of the bond.
The landlord, in response to Mr. Seuula's application, applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee at the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof
The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities; i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.
Section 97(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: ... the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law
It follows that, although the Tribunal is not bound by the usual rules of evidence when admitting evidence, where the allegation is serious, it is likely to require stronger evidence before finding the claim proved on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Rent arrears

It is not disputed that the tenancy ended on 25 May 2023.
However, a dispute arose regarding whether the tenant is liable for rent for the period of six days between 26 May and 31 May 2023, which amounts to $582.84.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not return the keys on 25 May 2023, and therefore, the tenant continued to possess the property until 31 May 2023. The final inspection was completed on 31 May 2023, and the tenant returned the keys to the landlord on the same day.
The tenant did not deny keeping the keys until 31 May 2023, stating that they needed the keys to repair a window and do some gardening work. They claimed that they believed they acted in good faith.
According to Mr. Seuula's evidence, Ms Dimbulane said that the tenant could keep the keys until everything inside the property was fixed, including a broken window. Mr. Seuula also added that they couldn't mow the lawn between 29 May 2023 and 31 May 2023 due to bad weather.
While I acknowledge that the tenant's intention was not to retain possession of the property, they kept the keys to gain access and perform necessary repairs and gardening so the property is returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition under section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”). However, the law is clear on this point. Section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA states that “the tenant shall on termination of the tenancy return to the landlord all keys ... provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant."
In other words, the tenancy does not end or terminate until the tenant returns all the keys to the landlord.
Therefore, the tenancy continued from 26 May to 31 May 2023 for a further six days, and the tenant is responsible for the rent arrears of $582.84. Water rates
The parties agreed in the hearing that the water rates owed to the landlord was $155.43.

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.
The landlord alleged the tenant damaged the walls in two rooms, which resulted in a repair cost of $805. However, the landlord could not provide any pre- tenancy inspection photos. Nor did the landlord provide a pre-tenancy inspection report.
The tenant denied being responsible for the damage to the walls and claimed that the damage was already present when they moved in.
The tenant submitted evidence that the damage to one of the rooms was pre- existing, which raised doubts about the damage in the second room being caused during the tenancy. The absence of pre-tenancy inspection photos also added to the uncertainty of the landlord's claim.
Despite this, the landlord relied on a signed statement from Ms Matalavea, which stated “wall paint & hole in room (sic) to be discussed & agreed”. The landlord argued the signed statement by Ms Matalavea was conclusive that she accepted responsibility for the damages.
I do not accept this submission because the statement only suggests the parties acknowledged wall paint & hole in room (sic) to be discussed & agreed. In my view, none of the words suggest the tenant accepted the liability of wall paint and hole in rooms apart from agreeing “to discuss and to agree”.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the tenant caused the damage during the tenancy, and the landlord's claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Both parties were successful in their application before me.
Accordingly, costs fall where they lie.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644255 — Rent arrears at 40 Clayton Avenue, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644255 — Rent arrears at 40 Clayton Avenue, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions