What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4799559?

The tribunal order states: Krystle Lillian Mellisa Davidson to pay Happy Fish Limited $515.07 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4799559?

Rent Arrears: $283.29 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $36.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $195.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799559?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10418891-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4799559?

The tribunal order states: Krystle Lillian Mellisa Davidson to pay Happy Fish Limited $515.07 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4799559?

Rent Arrears: $283.29 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $36.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $195.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799559?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10418891-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

280 Sunset Road, Windsor Park, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4799559 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4799559 — net $515.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$283.29	Rent arrears
Water rates	$195.78	Water rates
Replace smoke alarm	$36.00	Replace smoke alarm
Net award	$515.07
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$515.07

Order

Krystle Lillian Mellisa Davidson to pay Happy Fish Limited $515.07 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6467711-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Happy Fish Limited: $515.07 Krystle Lillian Mellisa Davidson: $2,084.93
The tenant’s application in respect of HHS is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The premises consist of a two level, 3-bedroom house. The tenant was living there with her two children and a flatmate.
The tenant has applied for compensation in respect of breaches of the Healthy Home Standards.
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 substantially a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish his respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that he must establish that what he 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.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 15 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. During the hearing the landlord amended his claim in accordance with the evidence presented. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the amounts ordered.
During the hearing the tenant accepted the amount claimed for outstanding water charges.

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. Oil stain on driveway:
The landlord claims that the tenant left an oil stain on the driveway at the end of the tenancy. The landlord stated that the tenant agreed to return to the property and remove the stain. The tenant stated during the hearing that the stain was there when she moved into the premises. The tenant emailed the landlord stating that there were stains on the driveway when she moved in. She also offered to return to clean the stains.
The landlord has provided an ‘entry’ photograph taken on 28 March 2023, well prior to the tenant moving into the premises. I have also been provided with what is meant to be an exit photograph showing the supposed stain on the driveway. The photograph is undated.
From the limited evidence filed in support of this claim I am not persuaded that the tenant is responsible for this damage.
The claim in respect of the driveway oil stain is dismissed. Smoke Alarm:
The landlord says that there were 5 smoke alarms, and one was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated during the hearing that the smoke alarm was faulty and because of this she removed it. She also stated that she did not leave it at the house when she moved.
I find this claim proved and is ordered accordingly. Lawns:
The landlord claims that the lawns were not left in a reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided exit photographs taken on Monday 19 December 2023. The lawn invoice amount is $207.00 however the landlord says that this was a month later which reduces the amount to $80.00.
The tenant does not accept this claim. She says that when she moved in everything was overgrown. The landlord says that she was responsible for mowing the lawns prior to leaving and did not. The tenant says that the lawns were mowed one week earlier.
The landlord has provided undated photographs in support of this claim. There is also a quote dated 2 February 2024 for ‘ground maintenance – over grown lawn mow, edges, blow pathways’. It would appear from the photograph taken on 28 March 2023 that the lawns were not in an ideal state at the start of the tenancy. Because of the lack of evidence filed in support I am unable to properly determine the condition of the lawns on the day the tenant moved into the premises.
The landlord has not persuaded me that the tenant left the lawns in an unsatisfactory condition at the conclusion of the tenancy.
The claim in respect of the lawns is dismissed. Rubbish Removal:
The landlord claims rubbish removal and tip fees as per his invoice/quote dated 5 February 2024. The landlord says that they could not do it earlier due to the Christmas and New Year period and could not find contractors to do it.
The tenant says that a lot of this rubbish was left there from the previous tenancy. The basement area was full of rubbish when the tenant moved into the address. The landlord says that he has only charged for the items shown in the photographs.
The tenant says that she removed all her rubbish and items on Saturday 16 December 2023. The landlord arranged a trailer and removed rubbish on Saturday 3 February 2024.
The landlord has only provided undated photographs in support of this claim. At the very least I would have expected the landlord to have provided proper evidence in the form of good quality dated photographs taken on the day the tenant moved into the address and exit photographs taken on the day the tenant moved out (or the very next day). There are photographs provided which clearly show ‘items’ outside the property however it is unclear when these photographs were taken and when the items were removed. Given that the tenant disputes this claim I am left with no other option but to refuse it. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has failed to remove rubbish.
The claim in respect of rubbish removal is dismissed. Basement light:
The landlord says that the tenant removed a light from the basement room. The landlord says the photograph was taken on 28 March 2023, again well before the tenant moved out. The exit photograph was taken 18 December 2023.
The landlord was not able to provide an expense claim in support of this.
The landlord has not proved this claim on the balance of probabilities.
This 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. Window sills:
The landlord says that tenant damaged window sills in two of the bedrooms and in the lounge. The landlord has provided a quote dated 2 February 2024 in support of this claim. I do not have any evidence before me which indicates what the condition of the window sills were in at the start of the tenancy. From the limited photographic evidence provided the window sills appear to be in poor condition.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for any alleged damage to the window sills.
This claim is dismissed. Garage Door:
The landlord says the garage door was bent and would not close. He stated that the garage door had to be bent back into shape. He further stated that the garage door is the original garage door.
The landlord has only provided a quote and has not had the work done due to finances.
The tenant says that the garage door was always bent and had a large rust hole at the bottom of it.
The undated photographic evidence of the garage door does not support the landlord’s claim for damage. I find that there is no evidence linking the tenant to any alleged damage.
This claim is also dismissed. Tenant application:
The tenant claims that the property is no longer being demolished and is up for sale. The tenant now wishes to relitigate the HHS issue with the property. The landlord says that the property is still to be demolished but had not happened yet due to the expenses associated with this. This landlord is not the owner of the property but rather a sub landlord. The landlord accepted that there is a ‘for sale’ sign in front of the house. The landlord says that with Council consent to demolish the tenant could reside there for 12 months.
These issues have already been litigated and decided in an earlier order. The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 24 July 2023. The HHS exemption is for 12 months from this date.
Accordingly, the tenant’s application must be dismissed.
Because both applications have been largely unsuccessful I make no orders for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4799559 — net $515.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$283.29	Rent arrears
Water rates	$195.78	Water rates
Replace smoke alarm	$36.00	Replace smoke alarm
Net award	$515.07
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$515.07

Order

Krystle Lillian Mellisa Davidson to pay Happy Fish Limited $515.07 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6467711-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Happy Fish Limited: $515.07 Krystle Lillian Mellisa Davidson: $2,084.93
The tenant’s application in respect of HHS is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The premises consist of a two level, 3-bedroom house. The tenant was living there with her two children and a flatmate.
The tenant has applied for compensation in respect of breaches of the Healthy Home Standards.
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 substantially a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish his respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that he must establish that what he 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.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 15 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. During the hearing the landlord amended his claim in accordance with the evidence presented. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the amounts ordered.
During the hearing the tenant accepted the amount claimed for outstanding water charges.

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. Oil stain on driveway:
The landlord claims that the tenant left an oil stain on the driveway at the end of the tenancy. The landlord stated that the tenant agreed to return to the property and remove the stain. The tenant stated during the hearing that the stain was there when she moved into the premises. The tenant emailed the landlord stating that there were stains on the driveway when she moved in. She also offered to return to clean the stains.
The landlord has provided an ‘entry’ photograph taken on 28 March 2023, well prior to the tenant moving into the premises. I have also been provided with what is meant to be an exit photograph showing the supposed stain on the driveway. The photograph is undated.
From the limited evidence filed in support of this claim I am not persuaded that the tenant is responsible for this damage.
The claim in respect of the driveway oil stain is dismissed. Smoke Alarm:
The landlord says that there were 5 smoke alarms, and one was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated during the hearing that the smoke alarm was faulty and because of this she removed it. She also stated that she did not leave it at the house when she moved.
I find this claim proved and is ordered accordingly. Lawns:
The landlord claims that the lawns were not left in a reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided exit photographs taken on Monday 19 December 2023. The lawn invoice amount is $207.00 however the landlord says that this was a month later which reduces the amount to $80.00.
The tenant does not accept this claim. She says that when she moved in everything was overgrown. The landlord says that she was responsible for mowing the lawns prior to leaving and did not. The tenant says that the lawns were mowed one week earlier.
The landlord has provided undated photographs in support of this claim. There is also a quote dated 2 February 2024 for ‘ground maintenance – over grown lawn mow, edges, blow pathways’. It would appear from the photograph taken on 28 March 2023 that the lawns were not in an ideal state at the start of the tenancy. Because of the lack of evidence filed in support I am unable to properly determine the condition of the lawns on the day the tenant moved into the premises.
The landlord has not persuaded me that the tenant left the lawns in an unsatisfactory condition at the conclusion of the tenancy.
The claim in respect of the lawns is dismissed. Rubbish Removal:
The landlord claims rubbish removal and tip fees as per his invoice/quote dated 5 February 2024. The landlord says that they could not do it earlier due to the Christmas and New Year period and could not find contractors to do it.
The tenant says that a lot of this rubbish was left there from the previous tenancy. The basement area was full of rubbish when the tenant moved into the address. The landlord says that he has only charged for the items shown in the photographs.
The tenant says that she removed all her rubbish and items on Saturday 16 December 2023. The landlord arranged a trailer and removed rubbish on Saturday 3 February 2024.
The landlord has only provided undated photographs in support of this claim. At the very least I would have expected the landlord to have provided proper evidence in the form of good quality dated photographs taken on the day the tenant moved into the address and exit photographs taken on the day the tenant moved out (or the very next day). There are photographs provided which clearly show ‘items’ outside the property however it is unclear when these photographs were taken and when the items were removed. Given that the tenant disputes this claim I am left with no other option but to refuse it. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has failed to remove rubbish.
The claim in respect of rubbish removal is dismissed. Basement light:
The landlord says that the tenant removed a light from the basement room. The landlord says the photograph was taken on 28 March 2023, again well before the tenant moved out. The exit photograph was taken 18 December 2023.
The landlord was not able to provide an expense claim in support of this.
The landlord has not proved this claim on the balance of probabilities.
This 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. Window sills:
The landlord says that tenant damaged window sills in two of the bedrooms and in the lounge. The landlord has provided a quote dated 2 February 2024 in support of this claim. I do not have any evidence before me which indicates what the condition of the window sills were in at the start of the tenancy. From the limited photographic evidence provided the window sills appear to be in poor condition.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for any alleged damage to the window sills.
This claim is dismissed. Garage Door:
The landlord says the garage door was bent and would not close. He stated that the garage door had to be bent back into shape. He further stated that the garage door is the original garage door.
The landlord has only provided a quote and has not had the work done due to finances.
The tenant says that the garage door was always bent and had a large rust hole at the bottom of it.
The undated photographic evidence of the garage door does not support the landlord’s claim for damage. I find that there is no evidence linking the tenant to any alleged damage.
This claim is also dismissed. Tenant application:
The tenant claims that the property is no longer being demolished and is up for sale. The tenant now wishes to relitigate the HHS issue with the property. The landlord says that the property is still to be demolished but had not happened yet due to the expenses associated with this. This landlord is not the owner of the property but rather a sub landlord. The landlord accepted that there is a ‘for sale’ sign in front of the house. The landlord says that with Council consent to demolish the tenant could reside there for 12 months.
These issues have already been litigated and decided in an earlier order. The HHS compliance date for this tenancy was 24 July 2023. The HHS exemption is for 12 months from this date.
Accordingly, the tenant’s application must be dismissed.
Because both applications have been largely unsuccessful I make no orders for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799559 — Rent arrears at 280 Sunset Road, Windsor Park, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799559 — Rent arrears at 280 Sunset Road, Windsor Park, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions