What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4741772?

The tribunal order states: Nadine Cara Amos must pay Xi Feng $2,431.87 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4741772?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,911.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4741772?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4741772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10974613-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4741772?

The tribunal order states: Nadine Cara Amos must pay Xi Feng $2,431.87 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4741772?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,911.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4741772?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4741772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10974613-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Blackwater Street, Bluff, Bluff 9814 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4741772 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4741772 — net $2,431.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (less bond money received by landlord	$1,911.43	Rent arrears (less bond money received by landlord
Cleaning	$500.00	the claim for cleaning is proven and a small level of compensation is awarded. Lock replacement:
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,431.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,431.87

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4741772 — net $2,431.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (less bond money received by landlord	$1,911.43	Rent arrears (less bond money received by landlord
Cleaning	$500.00	the claim for cleaning is proven and a small level of compensation is awarded. Lock replacement:
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,431.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,431.87

Order

Nadine Cara Amos must pay Xi Feng $2,431.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for rent arrears and cleaning are allowed. The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing. The tenant was represented by counsel.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Before I consider the specific claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish her respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that she must establish that what she is claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The landlord submitted a number of documents with her online application. There was also an oral hearing. Counsel for the tenant also provided helpful material in response to the landlord’s claims.
For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented; however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 27 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Counsel for the tenant also accepted the rent arrears during the hearing.
The rent arrears are ordered by consent.
The bond has been released to the landlord pursuant to an earlier Tenancy Tribunal order. The bond amount of $1140.00 has been deducted from the rent arrears of $3051.43.

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. Cleaning claim:
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises clean and tidy. She says the property was dirty and she spent considerable time cleaning.
The tenant took several photos on 27 October 2023. The landlord says that she did the cleaning herself. She is seeking a contribution towards the cleaning.
Counsel says that the state of the house at the start of the tenancy was unsatisfactory. They say that the tenant spent considerable time at the start of the tenancy cleaning. They also submit that the tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant called a witness to give viva voce evidence during the hearing. The witness was the last person present in the house. She says that she was there supporting the tenant. The tenant had already gone to her new place. The witness collected the key out of the letterbox and removed the washing machine from the laundry.
The witness says that the carpet was a bit messy. She says that the property was otherwise “pretty clean and tidy”. She further stated that the laundry needed a bit of a clean. The witness says that the laundry floor needed cleaning and the carpet needed a vacuum. The witness says that she could not smell anything on the carpet.
Counsel asked the witness what the state of the place outside was like. She replied confirming it was fine. She also stated that she placed the key back in the letterbox on the way out. The witness also says that she was present when the tenant moved into the property.
The landlord provided limited photographic evidence of the premises at the conclusion of the tenancy. I have sighted this evidence, and it is my view that there were areas inside and outside the house, particularly the carpet area which certainly needed further cleaning. Based on the evidence filed I am satisfied that a small number of areas of the house was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
While the landlord has not provided an expense claim in support of her claim for cleaning it is my assessment based on the evidence filed in support that a modest contribution towards the landlord’s time is appropriate.
Accordingly, the claim for cleaning is proven and a small level of compensation is awarded. Lock replacement:
The landlord claims that the tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord has claimed for a replacement ranch slider lock. She says that the tenant did not return the keys to the ranch slider, the back door and the garage door along with the key to the third bedroom door lock.
The amount claimed is $431.40 as per the invoice from Invercargill Locksmiths dated 31 October 2023.
Counsel in response that the tenant only had one key for the ranch slider. One of the keys was left on the windowsill of the lounge. The tenant also had a copy made for her daughter. The remaining key was posted to the landlord’s PO Box. The tenant says that she never had a key to the back door. They also say that the tenant did not jam anything into the lock of the third bedroom. Rubbish removal:
The landlord says that it was this tenant who left rubbish behind at the end of the tenancy. She claims that she took exit photos on 27 October 2023. She does not know who the rubbish and junk belong to.
The tenant says that most of the junk was there when she moved in. She also had Habitat for Humanity come and pick up a lot of stuff in early April 2023. The tenant provided a letter from them confirming this which I have sighted.
The tenant also provided an email dated 20 March 2023 which she sent to the landlord. The email confirmed an extensive list of issues with the property which the tenant was forced to address when she moved in on 1 March 2023. In that email the tenant also complained that there was “a lot of rubbish left here, not sure how you want to manage that”.
The landlord claims $1000.00 for rubbish removal. Missing chatels:
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy:
The landlord says that the tenant took a stainless-steel benchtop, pink batts and a fridge freezer.
The landlord is claiming $2000.00 for this. She says that this was in the garage at the start of the tenancy.
Counsel for the tenant says that these items were under the house. They say there was a stainless-steel bench under the house which the tenant did not remove. The landlord says she purchased it for $8000.00 in 2004.
The landlord did not file an expense claim in support of this.
There is no evidence which supports the claim that the tenant removed chattels. The landlord has also not file an expense claim in support of this. Based on a lack of evidence I find that the claim not proven.
The claim is dismissed.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for the following damage: Window repairs:
The landlord is claiming for window repairs. She says that the tenant removed rubber sealing around the inside of the window. The landlord is claiming is $1575.50 for window repairs.
This is an expense claim by the landlord from Nevs Glass and Glazing dated 17 December 2023. Counsel says that the window damage was not caused by this tenant. He says that the window issues were a live issue back in 2022 when the previous tenant was there. Counsel says that many of these claims circle back to when previous tenants were there. They say that this tenant has inherited most of these problems.
In an email dated 22 March 2024 the previous tenant confirmed, amongst other things, that the only thing left there was a fridge freezer unit, He also confirmed that the house was very cold due to old window sealings which were non existent due to their age. There was a quote from Southland Glass and mirror in 2021 which the previous tenant continued to ask about relating to the lock and the front sliding windows to be repaired. The previous stated in his email that he went through the motions for about two and a half years but nothing was done about it. I have also sighted a text message to the landlord dated 4 February 2022 in respect of the window hinges and seals. Plumbing claim:
The landlord says tenant is responsible for damage to the hot water cylinder valve. The previous tenant moved out on 14 March 2023. The hot water cylinder is the original since she owned the property since 2002. The landlord had to replace the valve on the cylinder.
The amended plumbers invoice was provided during the hearing for an amount of $953.14 plus GST. Counsel says that the hot water cylinder leaked and as a result her power bill doubled. They also say that the plumber stated the issues was down to fair wear and tear.
The landlord has only filed limited evidence in support of this claim by way of an plumber’s invoice. Electrician claim for light repairs:
The landlord is claiming for light repairs. The landlord says that the tenant damaged the lights. Counsel says that when the tenant moved in the oven was not working properly. Counsel says that much of this was for existing electrical work.
The amended amount claimed is $771.01 plus GST. The invoice is from Tansley Electrical dated 24 November 2023. The landlord has filed limited evidence in support of this claim. Analysis:
I am far from satisfied that the tenant is responsible for these damage claims. There is a complete lack of convincing evidence filed in support of these claims. The landlord has not filed entry photographic evidence which confirms the state of the premises at the time this tenant moved into the property.
On the other hand, the tenant has provided evidence which confirms that the premises were in need of extensive maintenance well prior to the tenant moving in. The previous tenant, in an email dated 22 March 2024 highlighted numerous issues with the property, one of those issues being the window rubbers which were old and perishing. The previous tenant also asked numerous times for the locks and front sliding windows to be repaired. Based on the evidence I am satisfied that parts of the premises were in desperate need for cleaning, repairs and maintenance at the start of the tenancy
In an email dated 20 March 2023 the tenant expressed her frustration to the landlord regarding the state of the premises when she moved in. The tenant was forced to undertake a considerable amount of work cleaning and addressing issues with the premises. The list of issues was extensive. On 30 July 2023 the tenant notified that landlord by email that she was in breach of her responsibilities as a landlord by not meeting the relevant building health and safety standards, and not ensuring that the property was in a reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. The list of issues included: A. Oven not working B. Oven and rangehood desperately needing a clean C. Shower broken and unable to be used D. Smoke alarms needing to be installed E. TV aerial not working F. Window hinges requiring urgent attention. Many are eroded and causing draughts G. Spouting requiring repair and maintenance H. Safety barrier on the veranda is loose along with a few pieces of concrete. The tenant’s uncle was able to make the sliding door more secure. I. The back door did not lock properly J. Significant rubbish at the property K. Windows needing to be cleaned inside and out along with curtains which need a wash
The onus is on the landlord to prove her claims on the balance of probabilities. It is not for the tenant to prove her ‘innocence’. The landlord has not provided evidence in the form of entry inspection photographs. There is also limited evidence provided in support of these claims taken at the conclusion of the tenancy on 27 October 2023 other than various expense claims.
The landlord is claiming a significant level of compensation from the tenant, and because of this the landlord had a responsibility to provide accurate, comprehensive and convincing evidence that the tenant was more likely than not responsible for the damage claimed. She has not done so. It is also not for the tenant to have to contribute towards the landlord’s renovations.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the damage claimed.
The claims relating to rent arrears and cleaning are allowed. The remaining claims are dismissed.
Because Xi Feng has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4741772 — Rent arrears at 15 Blackwater Street, Bluff, Bluff 9814

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4741772 — Rent arrears at 15 Blackwater Street, Bluff, Bluff 9814

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions