What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4796338?

The tribunal order states: Alysha Adams to pay Agile Property Services Limited $920.69 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4796338?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4796338?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4796338?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9936867-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4796338?

The tribunal order states: Alysha Adams to pay Agile Property Services Limited $920.69 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4796338?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4796338?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp, Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4796338?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9936867-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

93 Lincoln Road, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4796338 — Rent arrears

Order

Alysha Adams to pay Agile Property Services Limited $920.69 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,050.00 (3122250-017) immediately apportioned as follows: Agile Property Services Limited: $920.69 Alysha Adams: $129.31
All other claims are dismissed. ItemTo be paid to landlord Rent arrears $400.00 Compensation $500.25 Filing fee $20.44 Total to be paid by the tenant to the landlord $920.69

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the tenant and landlord. This tenancy has now ended. Both parties appeared at the hearing. Background
The tenant first moved into the premises, presumably as a flatmate for prior tenants. However, Ms Adams took over as the tenant on 19 October 2020, as recorded on the tenancy agreement provided to the Tribunal.
I note the tenancy is an older dwelling.
The tenancy ended by way of notice given by the tenant. Importantly, I note the text message communication between the landlord and tenant around possession returning back to the landlord, particularly the text message on 10 October at 12:11 pm. The tenant states: Hey we get the keys this Friday so will definitely be out by Sunday night so Monday we won’t be at the house.
The landlord responded ‘okay’.
At the hearing both parties agreed that the date possession was to return to the landlord, was 16 October 2023, and I agree that is the situation based on the text message conversation.
On 13 October 2023, the text messages record that the parties agreed to meet at the Tenancy at 3:00 pm, which I accept meant 3:00 pm on 16 October 2023.
Add 9:10 am on 16 October 2023, the landlord text messaged the tenant asking if they could meet earlier at 10:00 am, but the tenant replied that she could only do 3:00 pm as she had further work to do at the tenancy.
Ultimately the landlord and tenant to met at the property, around about 10:30 am, but the tenant did not return the keys at that time. It is also relevant to note that the parties had agreed that the tenant would arrange to have the lawns mowed and other work completed, but the exact date when that would occur, had not been agreed.
Various dispute arose in relation to the premises, and both parties have filed applications with the Tribunal, which I must now determine Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Rent arrears
The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears of $400.00. The tenant agrees that she owes those arrears to the landlord so this amount is ordered by consent of the parties. Compensation
The landlord seeks an order that the tenant pay compensation for mowing the lawns, weeding the garden, fixing the fence and cleaning the oven. The landlord was uncertain the date this work was undertaken at the tenancy, but advised it was a few days after possession return to the landlord on 16 October 2023.
The GST exclusive amounts claimed are as follows:
Lawns, $60.00
Weeding, $90.00
Oven cleaning, $45.00
Fence repair, $240.00
The GST inclusive amount of the claim is $500.25.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord has provided photographs taken when possession was returned, which shows that the lawns are very overgrown, and the weeds on the property are extensive. In relation to the oven, it was very dirty. Based on those photographs I have no doubt in finding that the premises were not reasonably tidy, and to that extent the tenant has failed to comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy. One of the more difficult factors in this case, is that there was an agreement between the parties that the tenant would subsequently have the lawns and weeds addressed. Unfortunately there were no dates that appear to have been agreed when that work would have been undertaken, but it could be accepted that if the landlord had made such an arrangement, that it would be implicit the expectation of the tenant would be to have that work completed without delay. But given that no date was set, overall I am satisfied that the tenant has had a reasonable opportunity to have addressed any further work needed in the tenancy, particularly in light of the tenants obligation to have that work completed prior to possession returning to the landlord - that is on 16 October.
I find therefore the tenant is liable for the costs incurred with addressing the grounds, and cleaning the oven.
The final compensation claim from the landlord relates to repairs to the fence. The landlord's position is that the fence has been damaged, most likely when the fence post was hit by a car. The landlord refers to photographs showing the area of the missing fence post, which coincides with dead grass, which no doubt is the result of cars driving over the grassed area.
Compensation for damage to the premises, is different in law to cleaning and tidying his claims. When the landlords claim for damage, the law requires that the landlord firstly establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it is beyond fair wear and tear. Once the landlord establishes those two circumstances, then the onus shifts to the tenant who must prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
In this case the parties and do not dispute that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenant says that the wind blew the fence over, that is disputed by the landlord. On balance, I am not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to support that the damage was caused by wind blowing the fence over, I am not persuaded that the damage is fair wear and tear. That means, that the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally, and I find she has not established that situation. Therefore the tenant becomes liable for the repair costs, which seem reasonable, and are ordered in full.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Rent in advance

The tenant has claimed that payments made by her at the start of the tenancy, have not been accounted for. At the hearing we considered the rent ledger provided by the landlord, and the payments that the tenant reports making, certainly are recorded in the landlords accounting records. Based on the information available, I cannot see that there are any payments the landlord has not properly recorded, for applied, and therefore this claim has not been established. Compensation for power usage / draughts
The tenant seeks compensation for the premises being cold, and requiring the use of power to heat the dwelling.
Both parties agree that during the tenancy the door to the wood burner broke. The tenant did not explain how the door was broken, but the landlord's view is that the doors broken by the tenant, but nothing particularly will turn on that. There is however a disagreement between the parties in relation to the dates. The tenant states that the door broke around June 2021, but the door was not replaced until May 2022, a little under a year later. The landlord on the other hand, states that the tenant notified him on 13 October 2021 that the door was broken, and that the door was removed and replaced by April 2022. The landlord accepts that it took “ages” for the repairer to fix the door, but states that the door was missing during the summer months, when the wood burner would not otherwise be used.
The tenant also states that there were gaps and various holes in the property, which caused draughts to arise.
The landlord also notes that in February 2023 he installed a secondhand heat pump into the premises, which he was not required to do by law. The tenant agrees that the heat pump was installed, but she does not consider that the location of the heat pump effectively warmed the house.
The landlord also provided photographs which show that somebody had converted the ceiling cavity, most likely for the purpose of growing cannabis. The landlord states that the insulation in the ceiling has been pushed to one side to allow the grow operation, which of itself would have resulted in the premises being colder. Furthermore the landlord notes that holes in the ceiling may be related to that conversion, such as passing extension cords for lighting.
The tenant disputes that she created the grow room, or knew anything about it, rather the tenant states that the room had been created by the prior tenant, who had moved out of the dwelling the month before she moved in. The tenant states that this tenant had been prosecuted by police for that grow operation in the ceiling. As I indicated to the tenant at the hearing, I find that explanation difficult to accept. If I were to accept the tenant’s version of events, then I would also need to accept that the tenant did not know that the outgoing tenant had been prosecuted for growing cannabis in her ceiling, which must be an unrealistic proposition given there were other continuing tenants living in the dwelling at the same time. I would also need to accept that the police have not contacted the landlord or owner of the dwelling to advise them of the damage that has been caused, particularly given the photographs recently taken by the landlord show that the grow room was largely intact.
The tenant also referred to medical records for her son that she provided to the Tribunal. I have reviewed those records which comprise general practitioner notes, and certainly they record various ailments for the tenant’s son, but the notes fall well short of the standard of medical evidence that would be necessary to establish that those ailments arose from any defect in the house. I will not set out the records in this decision, but note that what the GP has described, are reasonably common conditions that arise in children generally. They are not of themselves accepted as being exclusively, or even most commonly occurring from cold or damp dwellings.
When I consider the photographs, I would accept that the premises are in marginal condition, but I am not persuaded that the defects shown by the tenant are at the level at which compensation would be awarded. I am minded that the RTA requires that the tenant mitigate any loss she may have had, so if there were defects with the tenancy, the tenant was required to do something about them. In fact, there is an obligation of the RTA that when repairs are needed, that the tenant notify the landlord of that fact. If the tenant considered that the landlord was not acting reasonably, or sufficiently fast, the RTA would allow the tenant to give the landlord a notice to remedy, and if he did not do so, the landlord could be brought to the Tenancy Tribunal, where the Tribunal could make work orders etc.
In relation to the fireplace, I accept the position advanced by the landlord, that while there were delays in getting the door for the fireplace repaired, it was most likely to be during the months when the fireplace will not be needed, and so in reality no loss for the tenant arises.
On balance I find there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that a breach has arisen on the part of the landlord, or that compensation should be paid to the tenant. Breaches of Healthy Homes Standards / Maintenance
The tenant has claimed exemplary damages for breaches of the Healthy Home Standards (HHS). As I advised the parties at the hearing, that claim must be dismissed, because the HHS would only apply for the dwelling, if the Tenancy was continuing, as of 1 July 2025. The HHS requires that any tenancies which commenced after 1 July 2021 be HHS compliant, but this tenancy commenced in 2020.
The tenant then claimed for a failure to maintain. I have addressed that issue above, and for the reasons as set out there, find there are no grounds to make any orders in relation to a breach of the landlords obligation to maintain the tenancy. Name suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. The Tribunal can order name suppression when the party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding, but that is not the case for the tenant here. Accordingly the application for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4796338 — Rent arrears at 93 Lincoln Road, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4796338 — Rent arrears at 93 Lincoln Road, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions