What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4812057?

The tribunal order states: Taanisha Margaret Phylishtahu Paul and Bryson Rex Youle-Goldsack are to

How much money was awarded in case 4812057?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812057?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10248279-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4812057?

The tribunal order states: Taanisha Margaret Phylishtahu Paul and Bryson Rex Youle-Goldsack are to

How much money was awarded in case 4812057?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812057?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10248279-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2A Surrey Crescent, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4812057 — Rent arrears

Order

Taanisha Margaret Phylishtahu Paul and Bryson Rex Youle-Goldsack are to pay Why Worry Property Limited $830.00 from the bond, being rent arrears.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3394390-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Why Worry Property Limited: $830.00 Taanisha Margaret Phylishtahu Paul, Malcolm Dean Rarere, Patrick Bevan and Bryson Rex Youle-Goldsack: $770.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, including the tenants’ guarantors.
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 tenants have applied to have their bond refunded. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any individual claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants provided evidence in their bank statements that two disputed payments had been made. However, the statements also showed that those payments had been dishonoured. The statements did not show that the payments were made a second time. The landlord’s bank statement did not show that the disputed funds had been received.
The tenants believe that their account was debited with these payments of rent. On the evidence before the Tribunal, I must conclude that the landlord has not received the outstanding rent.

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 landlord claimed that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. He provided photographic evidence.
The tenant provided an invoice from a reputable business for the removal of rubbish from the property, lawnmowing and a carpet shampoo. The tenants provided photographic evidence of the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants claimed that the items shown in the landlord’s photographs did not belong to them. They suggested that some of the external rubbish may have been left by the tenants in the front property who were also moving out at that time. The tenants explained that they left a couch behind, as the new tenants - who were moving in as the tenants were moving out – had indicated that they would like to keep it.
The tenants advised that they had arranged to attend the property on 18 December 2023 with the landlord to carry out the final inspection. The tenants advised that the landlord did not attend at the agreed time. The landlord could not be clear as to when it inspected the property but believed that it was on 19 or 20 December 2023.
The items shown in the landlord’s photographs of the contents of the garage were generally tidily arranged and included items of value such as tools and a fridge. They included unopened bottles of beer. It did not look like goods which had been abandoned, nor that discarded items had been simply piled in the garage.
The landlord advised that it had disposed of these items and that the new tenants did not claim that the items belonged to them. The landlord provided a photograph of the garage dated 8 October 2022 showing the garage to be all but empty. It is therefore a mystery as to how it came to be almost full. I must wonder why anybody on leaving a property would stock and arrange a garage which had been unused for such purposes during the tenancy.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the items and rubbish disposed of by the landlord belonged to the tenants. Given the invoice provided by the tenant for removal of rubbish, it is possible that the external rubbish shown in the landlord’s photographs belonged to the front tenants. The landlord’s claim for the disposal of these items is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed for gardening work and provided photographic evidence of the work in progress. After the hearing, the landlord provided a photograph of a freshly cleared area dated 8 October 2022. It is not possible to determine whether this is an area shown as overgrown in the landlord’s other photographs.
The tenants denied that the areas of garden were in any worse condition at the end of the tenancy as at the start. The landlord did not provide evidence of the garden’s condition at the start of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has proven that the garden areas were in any worse state at the end of the tenancy than at the beginning. The landlord’s claim for gardening work is dismissed.
The landlord claimed that there were tar stains on the lounge carpet at the end of the tenancy and that it had to have the carpets cleaned again. The landlord’s photographic evidence is inconclusive. It is clear that the carpet is very worn and probably at the end of its economic life.
The tenants have provided photographic and documentary evidence that the had the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. They denied there being any tar stains on the carpets at the end of the tenancy. Their photographs do not indicate that the carpets were not reasonably clean and tidy, fair wear and tear excepted. The landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed as I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenants had not discharged their obligation to leave them reasonably clean given their well-worn condition.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the lock on the front door was missing after the end of the tenancy.
The tenants denied removing the lock and neither party could provide any reason why the tenants would remove it. Additionally, a photograph provided by the tenants taken after the property had been cleaned, indicates that the lock was still in place at that point.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenants removed the lock and are liable for its replacement. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed that the tenants caused a large indentation to a wall in the bathroom which the landlord’s photographs showed had been partially filled with some form of yellowish bogging.
The tenants agreed that the wall was not damaged at the start of the tenancy and denied causing the damage or that it was present at the end of the tenancy.
One of the tenants’ photographs taken from the door of the bathroom at the end of the tenancy does not show any damage. Having considered both the landlord’s and the tenants’ photographs, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the damage had occurred at the end of the tenancy. I have concluded that the damage and the coloured bogging would have been at least partially visible from the bathroom door and so would have been visible in the tenants’ photograph if it was present at the end of the tenancy.
With the parties’ consent, there was an overlap between the tenants moving out and the new tenants moving in. The landlord’s exit inspection took place at least three days after the end of the tenancy on 16 December 2023. It is possible that the damage was caused by the new tenants or another party during that period. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has proven that the tenants caused this damage. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s only successful claim has been for the arrears of rent which the tenants had reasonable grounds to believe were not owing. The landlord has not therefore been substantially successful in its application and so it is not appropriate that either party be reimbursed the filing fee or that either party’s names be suppressed.

Order

Taanisha Margaret Phylishtahu Paul and Bryson Rex Youle-Goldsack are to pay Why Worry Property Limited $830.00 from the bond, being rent arrears.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3394390-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Why Worry Property Limited: $830.00 Taanisha Margaret Phylishtahu Paul, Malcolm Dean Rarere, Patrick Bevan and Bryson Rex Youle-Goldsack: $770.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, including the tenants’ guarantors.
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 tenants have applied to have their bond refunded. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any individual claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 16 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants provided evidence in their bank statements that two disputed payments had been made. However, the statements also showed that those payments had been dishonoured. The statements did not show that the payments were made a second time. The landlord’s bank statement did not show that the disputed funds had been received.
The tenants believe that their account was debited with these payments of rent. On the evidence before the Tribunal, I must conclude that the landlord has not received the outstanding rent.

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 landlord claimed that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. He provided photographic evidence.
The tenant provided an invoice from a reputable business for the removal of rubbish from the property, lawnmowing and a carpet shampoo. The tenants provided photographic evidence of the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants claimed that the items shown in the landlord’s photographs did not belong to them. They suggested that some of the external rubbish may have been left by the tenants in the front property who were also moving out at that time. The tenants explained that they left a couch behind, as the new tenants - who were moving in as the tenants were moving out – had indicated that they would like to keep it.
The tenants advised that they had arranged to attend the property on 18 December 2023 with the landlord to carry out the final inspection. The tenants advised that the landlord did not attend at the agreed time. The landlord could not be clear as to when it inspected the property but believed that it was on 19 or 20 December 2023.
The items shown in the landlord’s photographs of the contents of the garage were generally tidily arranged and included items of value such as tools and a fridge. They included unopened bottles of beer. It did not look like goods which had been abandoned, nor that discarded items had been simply piled in the garage.
The landlord advised that it had disposed of these items and that the new tenants did not claim that the items belonged to them. The landlord provided a photograph of the garage dated 8 October 2022 showing the garage to be all but empty. It is therefore a mystery as to how it came to be almost full. I must wonder why anybody on leaving a property would stock and arrange a garage which had been unused for such purposes during the tenancy.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the items and rubbish disposed of by the landlord belonged to the tenants. Given the invoice provided by the tenant for removal of rubbish, it is possible that the external rubbish shown in the landlord’s photographs belonged to the front tenants. The landlord’s claim for the disposal of these items is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed for gardening work and provided photographic evidence of the work in progress. After the hearing, the landlord provided a photograph of a freshly cleared area dated 8 October 2022. It is not possible to determine whether this is an area shown as overgrown in the landlord’s other photographs.
The tenants denied that the areas of garden were in any worse condition at the end of the tenancy as at the start. The landlord did not provide evidence of the garden’s condition at the start of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has proven that the garden areas were in any worse state at the end of the tenancy than at the beginning. The landlord’s claim for gardening work is dismissed.
The landlord claimed that there were tar stains on the lounge carpet at the end of the tenancy and that it had to have the carpets cleaned again. The landlord’s photographic evidence is inconclusive. It is clear that the carpet is very worn and probably at the end of its economic life.
The tenants have provided photographic and documentary evidence that the had the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. They denied there being any tar stains on the carpets at the end of the tenancy. Their photographs do not indicate that the carpets were not reasonably clean and tidy, fair wear and tear excepted. The landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed as I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenants had not discharged their obligation to leave them reasonably clean given their well-worn condition.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the lock on the front door was missing after the end of the tenancy.
The tenants denied removing the lock and neither party could provide any reason why the tenants would remove it. Additionally, a photograph provided by the tenants taken after the property had been cleaned, indicates that the lock was still in place at that point.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenants removed the lock and are liable for its replacement. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed that the tenants caused a large indentation to a wall in the bathroom which the landlord’s photographs showed had been partially filled with some form of yellowish bogging.
The tenants agreed that the wall was not damaged at the start of the tenancy and denied causing the damage or that it was present at the end of the tenancy.
One of the tenants’ photographs taken from the door of the bathroom at the end of the tenancy does not show any damage. Having considered both the landlord’s and the tenants’ photographs, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the damage had occurred at the end of the tenancy. I have concluded that the damage and the coloured bogging would have been at least partially visible from the bathroom door and so would have been visible in the tenants’ photograph if it was present at the end of the tenancy.
With the parties’ consent, there was an overlap between the tenants moving out and the new tenants moving in. The landlord’s exit inspection took place at least three days after the end of the tenancy on 16 December 2023. It is possible that the damage was caused by the new tenants or another party during that period. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has proven that the tenants caused this damage. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s only successful claim has been for the arrears of rent which the tenants had reasonable grounds to believe were not owing. The landlord has not therefore been substantially successful in its application and so it is not appropriate that either party be reimbursed the filing fee or that either party’s names be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812057 — Rent arrears at 2A Surrey Crescent, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812057 — Rent arrears at 2A Surrey Crescent, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions