What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4777395?

The tribunal order states: Disney Kariyawasam and Dilanka Wijesekara to pay Christopher Bruce and

How much money was awarded in case 4777395?

Cleaning: $43.69 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $143.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $25.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777395?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777395?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10143749-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4777395?

The tribunal order states: Disney Kariyawasam and Dilanka Wijesekara to pay Christopher Bruce and

How much money was awarded in case 4777395?

Cleaning: $43.69 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $143.57 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $25.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4777395?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4777395?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10143749-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50A Bank Street, North East Valley, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4777395 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4777395 — net $212.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as agreed	$143.57	Rent arrears as agreed
Tip fee for rubbish removal as agreed	$25.00	Tip fee for rubbish removal as agreed
Half share cleaning products as agreed	$43.69	Half share cleaning products as agreed
Net award	$212.26
Bond	$960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$212.26

Order

Disney Kariyawasam and Dilanka Wijesekara to pay Christopher Bruce and Lynda Bruce $212.26 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $960.00 (6397721-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Christopher Bruce and Lynda Bruce: $212.26 Disney Kariyawasam and Dilanka Wijesekara: $747.74
The landlord’s application for further compensation of $199.00 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenant by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was initially for a fixed term from 18/12/2020.
In 2023 the tenancy rolled over to a periodic tenancy at $335.00 rent per week.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant gave notice on 10/10/2023 and vacated the premises on 22/10/2023.
In their application the landlord sought rent arrears of $143.57.
However, at the hearing because the tenant had not given 28 days notice the landlord sought to amend the claim to two weeks arrears of $670.00.
The landlord provided rent records which supported rent was paid to 26/10/2023.
The tenant agreed to three days rent of $143.57.
An award has been made for three days rent because the landlord confirmed that the premises were re let within that timeframe.
Although a tenant must give 28 days notice to end a periodic tenancy, a landlord is only entitled to rent for the 28 days or until the premises are relet, whichever date comes first.
If a landlord claimed rent for lack of notice at the same time as a new tenant was paying rent they would be “double dipping”.

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 landlord sought compensation as follows: a. $43.69 being a half share of cleaning products purchased by the landlord to clean the premises at the end of the tenancy, b. $25.00 tip fee for disposal of abandoned goods and rubbish
The tenant agreed to the amounts claimed because some cleaning needed doing and they had left behind possessions which they had been unable to collect.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed compensation of $199.00 for replacement of a microwave which they believed was “burnt out” during the tenancy.
In support of the claim the landlord provided a text message from the previous tenant who confirmed “The microwave was not damaged when we moved out, it was working fine.”
Further the landlord provided an entry property inspection report which noted a microwave as a chattel.
The landlord believed the microwave was around five years old.
On the other hand, the tenant disputed that they had damaged the microwave because when they opened the door of the appliance, they thought it was dirty so had not used it during the tenancy.
In support of their position the tenant provided a copy of a receipt from Briscoes dated 26/12/2023 for the purchase of a microwave which they submitted they had used instead.
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 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.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
I am not persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that it is more probable than not that the tenant damaged the microwave during the tenancy.
While it is a possibility this was the case the only supporting evidence comes from the text message of the previous tenant about the end of his tenancy three years ago and a chattels list, which does not prove the microwave worked at the beginning of this tenancy.
There are no property inspection reports during the three years of the tenancy to support when the microwave stopped working.
The tenant provided objective evidence in the form of a receipt confirming the date they purchased their own microwave.
For the avoidance of doubt had I determined that the evidence proved that tenant damaged the microwave during the tenancy I would not have made an award for replacement costs.
The reason for this is that I would have needed to consider betterment and depreciation. In calculating depreciation, I would have taken into account the age and condition of the microwave at the start of the tenancy and the likely useful lifespan.
The landlord was unsure of the age of the microwave but thought around five years, which I consider would be the likely useful lifespan of such an appliance.
No filing fee is awarded because both parties were partly successful, and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
The landlord did not ask for name suppression.
Although the tenant sought suppression this has not been granted because they were only partly successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4777395 — net $212.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as agreed	$143.57	Rent arrears as agreed
Tip fee for rubbish removal as agreed	$25.00	Tip fee for rubbish removal as agreed
Half share cleaning products as agreed	$43.69	Half share cleaning products as agreed
Net award	$212.26
Bond	$960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$212.26

Order

Disney Kariyawasam and Dilanka Wijesekara to pay Christopher Bruce and Lynda Bruce $212.26 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $960.00 (6397721-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Christopher Bruce and Lynda Bruce: $212.26 Disney Kariyawasam and Dilanka Wijesekara: $747.74
The landlord’s application for further compensation of $199.00 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenant by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was initially for a fixed term from 18/12/2020.
In 2023 the tenancy rolled over to a periodic tenancy at $335.00 rent per week.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant gave notice on 10/10/2023 and vacated the premises on 22/10/2023.
In their application the landlord sought rent arrears of $143.57.
However, at the hearing because the tenant had not given 28 days notice the landlord sought to amend the claim to two weeks arrears of $670.00.
The landlord provided rent records which supported rent was paid to 26/10/2023.
The tenant agreed to three days rent of $143.57.
An award has been made for three days rent because the landlord confirmed that the premises were re let within that timeframe.
Although a tenant must give 28 days notice to end a periodic tenancy, a landlord is only entitled to rent for the 28 days or until the premises are relet, whichever date comes first.
If a landlord claimed rent for lack of notice at the same time as a new tenant was paying rent they would be “double dipping”.

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 landlord sought compensation as follows: a. $43.69 being a half share of cleaning products purchased by the landlord to clean the premises at the end of the tenancy, b. $25.00 tip fee for disposal of abandoned goods and rubbish
The tenant agreed to the amounts claimed because some cleaning needed doing and they had left behind possessions which they had been unable to collect.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed compensation of $199.00 for replacement of a microwave which they believed was “burnt out” during the tenancy.
In support of the claim the landlord provided a text message from the previous tenant who confirmed “The microwave was not damaged when we moved out, it was working fine.”
Further the landlord provided an entry property inspection report which noted a microwave as a chattel.
The landlord believed the microwave was around five years old.
On the other hand, the tenant disputed that they had damaged the microwave because when they opened the door of the appliance, they thought it was dirty so had not used it during the tenancy.
In support of their position the tenant provided a copy of a receipt from Briscoes dated 26/12/2023 for the purchase of a microwave which they submitted they had used instead.
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 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.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
I am not persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that it is more probable than not that the tenant damaged the microwave during the tenancy.
While it is a possibility this was the case the only supporting evidence comes from the text message of the previous tenant about the end of his tenancy three years ago and a chattels list, which does not prove the microwave worked at the beginning of this tenancy.
There are no property inspection reports during the three years of the tenancy to support when the microwave stopped working.
The tenant provided objective evidence in the form of a receipt confirming the date they purchased their own microwave.
For the avoidance of doubt had I determined that the evidence proved that tenant damaged the microwave during the tenancy I would not have made an award for replacement costs.
The reason for this is that I would have needed to consider betterment and depreciation. In calculating depreciation, I would have taken into account the age and condition of the microwave at the start of the tenancy and the likely useful lifespan.
The landlord was unsure of the age of the microwave but thought around five years, which I consider would be the likely useful lifespan of such an appliance.
No filing fee is awarded because both parties were partly successful, and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
The landlord did not ask for name suppression.
Although the tenant sought suppression this has not been granted because they were only partly successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777395 — Rent arrears at 50A Bank Street, North East Valley, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4777395 — Rent arrears at 50A Bank Street, North East Valley, Dunedin 9010

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