What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4726609?

The tribunal order states: Deanne Guest must pay Geff Cookson $4,303.43 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4726609?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $225.24 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Fill LPG Bottle: $37.17 awarded to landlord; Missing Fridge / Freezer: $1,134.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,540.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Benchtop: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Fire extinguish…: $29.99 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: UV Filter: $239.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Registraton Plate: $24.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $92.73 awarded to landlord; Window Stay: $30.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4726609?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4726609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10248991-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4726609?

The tribunal order states: Deanne Guest must pay Geff Cookson $4,303.43 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4726609?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $225.24 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Fill LPG Bottle: $37.17 awarded to landlord; Missing Fridge / Freezer: $1,134.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,540.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Benchtop: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Fire extinguish…: $29.99 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: UV Filter: $239.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Registraton Plate: $24.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $92.73 awarded to landlord; Window Stay: $30.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4726609?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4726609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10248991-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1236 Ruapekapeka Road, Kawakawa, 1236, Kawakawa Tenancy Tribunal Case 4726609 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4726609 — net $4,303.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,540.00	10. The amount of rent arrears is proven.
Missing fridge / freezer	$1,134.00	Missing fridge / freezer
Repairs: Kitchen benchtop	$850.00	Repairs: Kitchen benchtop
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Power cable ripped out	$225.24	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Power cable ripped out
Replace furnishings: Fire extinguisher	$29.99	Replace furnishings: Fire extinguisher
Window stay	$30.00	Window stay
Replace furnishings: UV filter	$239.00	Replace furnishings: UV filter
Rubbish removal	$92.73	Rubbish removal
Replace registraton plate	$24.86	Replace registraton plate
Fill LPG bottle	$37.17	Fill LPG bottle
Cleaning: Couch	$80.00	Cleaning: Couch
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	105. The cost claimed ($80.00 for a rug doctor hire) is fair and reasonable.
Net award	$4,303.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,303.43

Ms Guest was an employee at Mr Cookson’s farm. She entered into a service tenancy for a tiny house situated on the farm.

The employment arrangement, and the tenancy, ended in difficult circumstances.

Ms Guest brought an application to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking compensation and exemplary damages in respect of failure to meet healthy homes standards, and failure to maintain 1 .

The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, compensation for missing chattels, repairs, and change of locks costs.

The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 28 March 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Emarn Cookson represented Mr Cookson at the hearing. Rent arrears

The claim seeks rent arrears of $1,540.00 to 29 October 2023.

Ms Guest experienced poor health in the latter stages of the tenancy due to complications with her pregnancy. She was hospitalised in August, and she only returned to the property once after that to retrieve belongings before the tenancy ended.

I acknowledge Ms Guest’s difficult personal circumstances.

However, a tenant’s obligation to pay rent continues to the termination date of the tenancy, irrespective of whether the tenant is living in the property.

The amount of rent arrears is proven. Damage, and missing chattels

There was no tenancy agreement or entry inspection report for this tenancy.

As noted above, Ms Guest only returned to the property once after August 2023. She was accompanied by her (now ex-) partner. On that occasion her partner became very angry and vandalised an area near Ms Cookson’s house.

At the end of the tenancy Ms Cookson found that there was intentional damage to the tiny house also. It also appeared that the tiny house may have been broken into. 1 Guest v Cookson [2023] NZTT 4666889

In any claim for damage, the landlord must establish that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy and that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. If the landlord can prove those things, then the tenant is legally liable for the damage unless the tenant can prove that the damage occurred in circumstances in which they are not legally liable. Tenants are legally liable for damage that is caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. Missing generator

The landlord purchased and provided a generator for the tiny house as a back- up for the solar panels. The landlords also supplied fuel for the generator.

The generator was located in a small shed near the tiny house. The shed also housed equipment for the electric fencing.

The generator was missing at the end of the tenancy.

Ms Guest noted that anyone could access the shed.

Ms Guest also noted that the generator is a heavy item, approximately 40kg. Ms Guest was in the late stages of pregnancy, and she was suffering from health problems.

The generator went missing during the period of the tenancy. As discussed in more detail below, the landlord has proven that there was intentional damage to the tiny house and some other chattels were taken.

The only persons with access to this part of the farm were the Cooksons and farm employees.

The claim is finely balanced. There is good cause to suspect that the person who caused the intentional damage and took the other chattels (including the fridge / freezer) also took the generator, which is a valuable item.

However, the fact that the generator is located in an unsecured shed outside of the tiny house introduces the possibility that it could have been taken by someone other than Ms Guest or a person who was at the premises with her consent.

That possibility introduces sufficient doubt about liability. For that reason, this part of the claim is dismissed. Missing Westinghouse fridge / freezer

Ms Cookson submitted that there was a Westinghouse fridge / freezer in the tiny house at the start of the tenancy. The Westinghouse was in the house when she lived there. It fitted perfectly into the cavity that was created for it.

At the end of the tenancy, the Westinghouse was missing, and a small low- quality fridge was in its place.

Ms Cookson provided a photograph of the Westinghouse in situ. The photograph was taken at the beginning of Ms Guest’s tenancy, but some time before that.

Ms Guest submitted that there was no fridge in the house when her tenancy began. She knew this, and so she brought her fridge with her when she moved up from the Waikato. That is the fridge that Ms Cookson found at the end of the tenancy.

In a claim for missing chattels, the landlord has the burden of proof to establish that the item was in the property at the start of the tenancy. This is usually done by a chattels list on the tenancy agreement, or photographs in the entry inspection report.

That evidence is not available in this instance.

However, Ms Cookson’s photograph shows that the Westinghouse fridge / freezer fit perfectly in a cavity in the kitchen in the tiny house. There is no reason why Ms Cookson would have removed the Westinghouse before the start of Ms Guest’s tenancy. The idea was that Ms Guest could move straight into the tiny house and begin working on the farm.

Also, if Ms Cookson removed the fridge / freezer before the start of the tenancy, then she would know that she had removed it. Ms Cookson would not have forgotten that she had removed it. This would mean that her claim against Ms Guest could only be an intentional fraud.

As discussed below, the landlord has proven that there was intentional damage and various items were stolen in the latter part of Ms Guest’s tenancy.

The burden of proof that applies in the Tenancy Tribunal is the civil standard of “more likely than not”.

My finding is that it is more likely than not that the Westinghouse fridge / freezer was in the tiny house at the start of the tenancy.

As noted above, tenants are liable for loss / damage that occurs during the tenancy unless the tenant can prove that the loss / damage was caused by something other than an intentional action by themselves or by someone who was at the premises with their consent.

I have no information about the circumstances in which the fridge / freezer went missing.

It is not proven that it occurred in circumstances that exonerate the tenant.

Therefore I find that the tenant is liable for the loss.

The amount claimed ($1,512.00) is the new replacement cost of the fridge / freezer. I will apply depreciation of 25% having regard to the age and condition of the item. Replace vehicle battery

As noted above, Ms Guest’s ex-partner caused intentional damage to Ms Cookson’s property during an incident near the end of the tenancy.

That damage included ‘attacking’ a battery and some alcathene pipe with a hatchet that was nearby.

Ms Guest is liable for any damage that her partner caused to the tenanted premises, but this incident occurred away from the tenanted premises, outside Ms Cookson’s house.

From the perspective of the Tenancy Tribunal, Ms Guest cannot be held liable for this damage. Repairs to kitchen benchtop

There is a wooden benchtop in the kitchen. The benchtop was made from totara milled from the farm.

Ms Cookson’s photographs show numerous stab and cut marks on the bench.

The damage is not fair wear and tear. It is intentional damage.

Ms Guest stated that she did not know who caused the damage, and it was not there when she was last at the property.

The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and it occurred during the period of the tenancy. There is no evidence to show that the damage occurred in circumstances that exonerates the tenant.

The claim is proven.

The claim seeks the cost of repairs (sand and seal) per a quote from Craig’s Contracting. I am satisfied that the cost of repair is less than replacement, given that the benchtop is in an established kitchen, with plumbed fittings, a sink insert, etc. Electrical cord ripped out

Ms Cookson’s photographs show that the electrical cable was violently torn out from the fitting on the outside of the tiny house.

The cost of repairs was $225.24 per an invoice from Bay of Islands Electrical Ltd.

Ms Guest stated that she did not know anything about this damage or how it occurred.

The cord is located on the outside of the tiny house, but the nature of the damage is consistent with other damage to the inside of the house such as the stabbed kitchen bench and ripped out water filter underneath the bench. Someone has caused intentional damage to the tiny house. Ms Cookson and her family would not have caused the damage. There is no evidence to indicate that any other farm employee (the only other persons with legal access to this part of the farm) had a grudge against either Ms Guest or Ms Cookson.

The burden of proof that applies in this Tribunal is “more likely than not”.

My finding is that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused by a person associated with Ms Guest (most likely, her ex-partner).

The claim is proven.

The cost of repairs is proven. CAT jumper / starter pack

Ms Cookson loaned this item to Ms Guest when she was having problems with the power supply to the cabin.

Ms Cookson submitted that Ms Guest took the starter pack back to the cabin and she has not seen it since.

Ms Guest submitted that the starter pack was not much use to her, and she did not take it back to the cabin but left it in Ms Cookson’s shed.

This item was not a chattel that formed part of the tenanted premises. It was not located in the tiny house at the start of the tenancy, and it is disputed (and not proven) that it ever went into the tiny house.

This part of the claim is dismissed. Replace fire extinguisher

Ms Cookson submitted that there was a fire extinguisher underneath the kitchen bench, which was missing at the end of the tenancy. The claim seeks $29.99 to replace the fire extinguisher.

Ms Guest submitted that she never saw a fire extinguisher underneath the bench, and she questioned whether there was one there.

There is no photograph or other evidence of there being a fire extinguisher in the property at the start of the tenancy. However, it would be a very odd thing for the landlord to ‘make up’, and it is clear that someone has been underneath the kitchen bench during the period of the tenancy and caused damage there. The UV filter underneath the bench was ripped out of its bracket and damaged.

I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that there was a fire extinguisher underneath the benchtop per Ms Cookson’s oral evidence, and that the fire extinguisher was taken during the ‘attack’ on the property. Replace quandrant stays, security lights, petrol can

Ms Cookson submitted that several of the security lights were missing, and some window stays were damaged. There was damage to a petrol can (the landlord provided petrol to the tenant for the generator).

There is little evidence around these more minor areas of damage. I was provided with one photograph showing a missing securing nut on a window stay.

The petrol cans were the landlord’s property loaned to the tenant, but not a chattel.

I will award $30.00 for the minimal proven damage. UV filter

As noted above, the UV filter underneath the kitchen benchtop was ripped out of its bracket and intentionally damaged.

In line with my findings above, I am satisfied that this was part of the ‘attack’ on the property that occurred during Ms Guest’s tenancy. The claim is proven. Change of locks

The claim seeks $158.93 to change the locks on the tiny house and $1,020.00 to change the locks and create new keys for the farm gate.

Ms Guest was provided with a key for the farm gate, which provides access to the part of the farm where the tiny house is located. Ms Cookson submitted that Ms Guest was provided with two keys for the tiny house and there was also a spare key in a hidden spot.

Ms Cookson received back two tiny house keys and no gate key at the end of the tenancy.

The farm gate key is not specific to the tenancy. Ms Cookson provides a gate key to all employees, and Ms Guest would have received one in that capacity irrespective of whether she was staying in the tiny house.

Ms Guest’s alleged failure to return that key is an employment issue rather than a tenancy issue.

Ms Guest stated that she received only one key plus the spare for the tiny house at the beginning of the tenancy, not two plus the spare as Ms Cookson alleges. She recalled that the spare key had a pink ribbon on it.

In the absence of a key receipt or a signed tenancy agreement stating the number of keys, it is very difficult for Ms Cookson to prove how many keys were supplied.

The landlord has the burden of proof.

In light of this limited and conflicting evidence my finding is that it is not proven that Ms Guest was given three keys for the tiny house at the start of the tenancy. This part of the claim is dismissed. Rubbish dumping

Ms Guest accepted this part of the claim. Replace missing garden hose

Ms Guest denied that there was any garden hose at the premises.

Ms Cookson could not provide any evidence that there was a garden hose at the premises at the start of the tenancy.

This part of the claim is not proven. Replace number plate for tiny house

The tiny house is on a trailer, and it is registered.

Ms Cookson stated that at the end of the tenancy the registration plate was missing.

There was other intentional damage to the outside of the tiny house. The power cord was ripped out. The gas bottle was removed and thrown underneath the deck.

There is no photograph showing the registration plate in place during the tenancy. However, I accept that it was there. The tiny house was registered.

Someone has caused intentional damage to the inside and outside of the tiny house, and their intention was to cause as much inconvenience as possible.

I am satisfied that it is most likely that the registration place was removed during that attack.

The cost of obtaining a replacement plate is proven. Gas bottle refill and replacement

Ms Cookson submitted that there were two gas bottles at the property at the start of the tenancy.

At the end of the tenancy, they recovered one, which had been disconnected and removed from its stand at the back of the tiny house and thrown underneath the deck.

The claim seeks the cost of replacing the missing gas bottle, and filling the one that was recovered.

Ms Guest stated that there was only one gas bottle at the property during her tenancy. She submitted that she brought her own bottle and swapped between her one and the landlord’s during the tenancy. She took her own bottle at the end of the tenancy.

There is no evidence that there were two gas bottles on the property at the start of the tenancy.

The claim for replacing one bottle is dismissed. The claim for filling one bottle is proven. Materials for floor sanding and sealing, and replacement of various small items

This part of the claim includes: Materials for wooden floor repair Shower curtain rungs Oven tray replacement Broken fairy lights Dog training collar Couch pillow Solar security floodlight Garden cone trellis

This part of the claim is dismissed for the following reasons: a. Ms Cookson’s photographs show some scratching on the wooden floors at the end of the tenancy. There is no good evidence of the condition of the floors at the start of the tenancy. Ms Guest had several dogs, but she denied that any of the dogs spent time inside the house. The landlord has the burden of proof to establish that damage occurred during the period of the tenancy. In the absence of an entry inspection report, it is not possible to know the condition of the floors at the start of the tenancy. b. There is no evidence of the presence of the oven tray, solar security floodlight, garden cone trellis, etc. c. The dog training collar was provided to Ms Guest as part of her employment, not as part of the tenancy. Couch rug doctor

Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.

Ms Cookson provided photographs of the couch, which show that it was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The cost claimed ($80.00 for a rug doctor hire) is fair and reasonable. Filing fee

The landlord has been largely successful in this application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4726609 — net $4,303.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,540.00	10. The amount of rent arrears is proven.
Missing fridge / freezer	$1,134.00	Missing fridge / freezer
Repairs: Kitchen benchtop	$850.00	Repairs: Kitchen benchtop
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Power cable ripped out	$225.24	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Power cable ripped out
Replace furnishings: Fire extinguisher	$29.99	Replace furnishings: Fire extinguisher
Window stay	$30.00	Window stay
Replace furnishings: UV filter	$239.00	Replace furnishings: UV filter
Rubbish removal	$92.73	Rubbish removal
Replace registraton plate	$24.86	Replace registraton plate
Fill LPG bottle	$37.17	Fill LPG bottle
Cleaning: Couch	$80.00	Cleaning: Couch
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	105. The cost claimed ($80.00 for a rug doctor hire) is fair and reasonable.
Net award	$4,303.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,303.43