Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4725369 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 4, 165 Yarrow Street, Invercargill, Invercargill
Decided 5 Feb 2024 · Published 5 Feb 2024 · Application 4725369
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
Order
- Rowen Ward must pay Inspire Property Management Limited $1,864.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- Inspire Property Management Limited shall retain the $1,000.00 security deposit previously paid by the tenant.
- There is no order for name suppression.
- The tenant’s application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, cleaning costs, and to retain the security bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on about 15 th December 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant did not dispute this amount as owing and made it clear that he did not need to come to the Tribunal as he had agreed to this.
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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
- The tenant accepted the small cleaning fee sought.
- The tenant was under a lease agreement and psid a security deposit of $1000.00. This is taken into consideration in the amount ordered. Tenants claim:
- The tenant claims for compensation for what he believes was an unlawful act by the landlord, that is, he was given 48 hours’ notice to terminate the tenancy. This was based on the signed lease agreement that both parties had signed.
- The tenant had been asked to sign a Residential Tenancy Agreement to replace this, however it was never signed. The landlord thus relying on the 48 hour notice in the lease agreement given the rent arrears were high to terminate.
- The tenant claims that the notice was unlawful because when he was told about the need to sign a tenancy agreement, he was told that the lease agreement would be void.
- The only signed agreement between the parties was the lease agreement, The evidence from the tenant is that when he was emailed the agreement, he didn’t realised what it was and by the time he clicked on it the link had expired. Nothing further was done.
- He was given 48 hours’ notice to terminate in October 2023, however again neither party enforced this and the tenancy did not in fact came to an end until 15 th December 2023 when the tenant advised he was leaving at that time.
- The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
- The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord gave notice to terminate unlawfully, that being, relying on the only signed agreement, the lease agreement, that the tenant said had been void even though he had not signed the new lease agreement. The tenant remained at the property for a number of weeks following that notice in any event.
- The tenant also sought name suppression, believing the landlord was in the wrong and thus he should not be publicly named.
- Section 95A of the Residential tenancies Act provides the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to make suppression orders. There are certain circumstances when the order should be made.
- The tribunal must make the order on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings. In this case, the tenant has not succeeded. However, I sought clarification from the landlord if they agreed to suppression orders, they did not.
- Section 94A(4) states that the tribunal MAY on the application of any party to the proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party not be published.
- This is not the case here. The tenant’s claim was unsuccessful against the landlord. He believes they acted unlawfully; I have not found that on the evidence. Regarding the landlord’s application, whilst I accept that the tenant may well have agreed to repay the rent arrears and cleaning, there has been no payments made or agreement entered into regarding how that was to be paid and the landlord is entitled to obtain an order from the Tribunal to be able to enforce if required.
- Having considered all of the information before me I am not satisfied that the order for name suppression should be granted to the tenant.
- The tenants application is therefore dismissed.
- Because Inspire Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.