What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4745649?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for overpaid rent is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4745649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10165184-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4745649?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for overpaid rent is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4745649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10165184-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 North Taieri Road, Abbotsford, Dunedin 9018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4745649 — Rent arrears

Order

The application by the tenant for overpaid rent is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,140.00 (3386326-004) to Laurie Tait and Teresa Tait immediately.
The application by the landlord for rent arrears and compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks a refund of their $1,140.00 bond and refund of unspecified amount of overpaid rent.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Initially the tenancy was for a fixed term from 15/9/2017 to 15/1/2019 @ $285.00 per week.
The tenancy was then renewed for a further fixed term from 19/8/2019 to 1/9/2020 @ $340.00 per week.
At the end of the fixed term the tenancy rolled over to a periodic tenancy.
However, the evidence of the parties was unclear as to the weekly rental at that point.
The landlord believed at the end of the tenancy the rent was $380 per week and the tenant $350.00 per week. Tenant claim

Did the tenant overpay rent?

The tenant submitted that they had overpaid rent at the rate of $20.00 per week from the beginning of 2023 until the tenancy ended in September 2023.
The landlord disputed there was any over payment but rather claimed rent arrears.
No bank statements or rent records were provided by the tenant to support any overpayment of rent.
The tenants’ claim for overpaid rent fails.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4/9/2023.
In the application the landlord claimed rent arrears of $1,140.00.
No rent records were provided by the landlord to support the amount claimed.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears fails.

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.
The landlord sought compensation of $1,600.00 as follows: a. $800.00 for rubbish removal b. $800.00 for labour
The tenant disputed that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
However, the tenant agreed that they had left a couch and table.
The claim for compensation fails.
The Tenancy Tribunal is a civil jurisdiction. This means an 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.
In this instance both parties, but particularly the landlord, have failed in every respect to prove the matters they are claiming.
The landlord appeared at the hearing with no documentation other than photographs on his cell phone which he said were taken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord suggested that his daughter had sent one and possibly two emails to Tenancy Services containing all his evidence on 16/1/2024.
The Tribunal spent considerable time attempting to track down the emails and resend the information on the landlord’s cell phone to the Dunedin Tribunal email address.
These attempts were unsuccessful.
Usually in such circumstances I would have given the landlord the benefit of the doubt and adjourned the hearing so he could provide the information he wished to rely on.
However, I decided not to do so for two reasons, and proceeded with the hearing.
First because the tenant did not want an adjournment due to having travelled considerable distance to attend the hearing and they also had not provided sufficient information to prove their claim about overpaid rent.
Second and more importantly I was not persuaded by the information provided by the landlord about his evidence. When questioned the landlord frequently changed his story about what evidence he had, for example whether he had a rent schedule or just bank statements and if he had any receipts for work done and how long and by whom the work was undertaken.
The landlord was unsure about how much the weekly rent was at any particular period during the six years of the tenancy.
For the avoidance of doubt, I found the evidence of the landlord lacked any credibility whatsoever.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
I have therefore dismissed all claims by both parties.
The bond is refunded to the tenant because a bond is tenants’ money and if the claim against the bond is unsuccessful, they are entitled to a refund.
No filing fee is awarded as both parties were largely unsuccessful and the filing fees cancel each other out.
Although the landlord asked for name suppression none has been granted pursuant to section 95A because the landlord was totally unsuccessful with his claim.

Order

The application by the tenant for overpaid rent is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,140.00 (3386326-004) to Laurie Tait and Teresa Tait immediately.
The application by the landlord for rent arrears and compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks a refund of their $1,140.00 bond and refund of unspecified amount of overpaid rent.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Initially the tenancy was for a fixed term from 15/9/2017 to 15/1/2019 @ $285.00 per week.
The tenancy was then renewed for a further fixed term from 19/8/2019 to 1/9/2020 @ $340.00 per week.
At the end of the fixed term the tenancy rolled over to a periodic tenancy.
However, the evidence of the parties was unclear as to the weekly rental at that point.
The landlord believed at the end of the tenancy the rent was $380 per week and the tenant $350.00 per week. Tenant claim

Did the tenant overpay rent?

The tenant submitted that they had overpaid rent at the rate of $20.00 per week from the beginning of 2023 until the tenancy ended in September 2023.
The landlord disputed there was any over payment but rather claimed rent arrears.
No bank statements or rent records were provided by the tenant to support any overpayment of rent.
The tenants’ claim for overpaid rent fails.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 4/9/2023.
In the application the landlord claimed rent arrears of $1,140.00.
No rent records were provided by the landlord to support the amount claimed.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears fails.

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.
The landlord sought compensation of $1,600.00 as follows: a. $800.00 for rubbish removal b. $800.00 for labour
The tenant disputed that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
However, the tenant agreed that they had left a couch and table.
The claim for compensation fails.
The Tenancy Tribunal is a civil jurisdiction. This means an 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.
In this instance both parties, but particularly the landlord, have failed in every respect to prove the matters they are claiming.
The landlord appeared at the hearing with no documentation other than photographs on his cell phone which he said were taken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord suggested that his daughter had sent one and possibly two emails to Tenancy Services containing all his evidence on 16/1/2024.
The Tribunal spent considerable time attempting to track down the emails and resend the information on the landlord’s cell phone to the Dunedin Tribunal email address.
These attempts were unsuccessful.
Usually in such circumstances I would have given the landlord the benefit of the doubt and adjourned the hearing so he could provide the information he wished to rely on.
However, I decided not to do so for two reasons, and proceeded with the hearing.
First because the tenant did not want an adjournment due to having travelled considerable distance to attend the hearing and they also had not provided sufficient information to prove their claim about overpaid rent.
Second and more importantly I was not persuaded by the information provided by the landlord about his evidence. When questioned the landlord frequently changed his story about what evidence he had, for example whether he had a rent schedule or just bank statements and if he had any receipts for work done and how long and by whom the work was undertaken.
The landlord was unsure about how much the weekly rent was at any particular period during the six years of the tenancy.
For the avoidance of doubt, I found the evidence of the landlord lacked any credibility whatsoever.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
I have therefore dismissed all claims by both parties.
The bond is refunded to the tenant because a bond is tenants’ money and if the claim against the bond is unsuccessful, they are entitled to a refund.
No filing fee is awarded as both parties were largely unsuccessful and the filing fees cancel each other out.
Although the landlord asked for name suppression none has been granted pursuant to section 95A because the landlord was totally unsuccessful with his claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4745649 — Rent arrears at 12 North Taieri Road, Abbotsford, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4745649 — Rent arrears at 12 North Taieri Road, Abbotsford, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant overpay rent?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant overpay rent?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions