What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4833038?

The tribunal order states: Steven John Marley and Lisa Marie Marley must pay Mehome Limited - As

How much money was awarded in case 4833038?

Break Lease Fee: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity Charges: $1,195.21 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,700.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $444.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4833038?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4833038?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10413813-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4833038?

The tribunal order states: Steven John Marley and Lisa Marie Marley must pay Mehome Limited - As

How much money was awarded in case 4833038?

Break Lease Fee: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity Charges: $1,195.21 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,700.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $444.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4833038?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4833038?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10413813-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 & 3A Korowhiti Road, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4833038 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4833038 — net $7,803.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$9,700.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$444.30	r and accepts that both power and water were used. The tenant is ordered to pay $444.30 for water and $1,195.21 for electricity.
Electricity charges	$1,195.21	h power and water were used. The tenant is ordered to pay $444.30 for water and $1,195.21 for electricity.
Break Lease fee	$644.00	Break Lease fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,803.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,803.95

Order

Steven John Marley and Lisa Marie Marley must pay Mehome Limited - As Agent For H Wang $7,803.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both tenants attended the hearing on 4 June 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
Claims were lodged by the landlord for water rates and a break lease fee on the day of the hearing. The tenant consented to those matters being heard today.
The tenancy commenced on 1 October 2023 and was a fixed term tenancy to end on 1 October 2024. The tenanted premises are 3 and 3A Korowhiti Road, Clarks Beach ( the premises”). Rent Arrears
The tenant evidence, which I accept, was that they told the landlord on 20 February 2024 that for personal reasons they would be leaving the premises at the end of the third week in March 2024.
The tenant subsequently vacated the premises on 10 March 2024, having paid all rent up to and including 17 February 2024.
The tenant had referred a potential acquaintance to the landlord as a possible replacement tenant. That person did subsequently take over the tenancy, but solely as it relates to 3, but not 3A Korowhiti Road.
The rent summary indicates that as at the date of this hearing the tenant is in arrears in the sum of $9,700.00. This has been calculated by adding; • The 6 weeks and 1 days rent owing for the period from 18 February 2024 up to 1 April 2024 for the full premises ( a total of $6,450.00); and • The shortfall on the rent paid by the replacement tenant for number 3 ($700.00 per week) and the rent not being paid for 3A ($350.00 per week) for the period between 1 April 2024 and 4 June 2024 ($3,250.00).
A tenant remains liable for rent during the course of a fixed term tenancy. There is no obligation on a landlord to mitigate their losses, although they have done so in part in this matter.
The tenant is to pay the landlord rent arrears of $9,700.00 for the period ending 4 June 2024. Outgoings
Section 39 RTA provides that a tenant will be responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises including, but not limited to electricity and water.
The landlord provided a summary and invoices for both electricity use and water use by the tenant. The tenant said that he was never told that he would be liable for outgoings. As a recent New Zealand resident, I accept that this may have been correct. In the circumstances, it is possible that the landlord could have been more proactive in bringing the matter to the attention of the tenant. That being said, the tenant is liable for and accepts that both power and water were used. The tenant is ordered to pay $444.30 for water and $1,195.21 for electricity. Break Lease fee
Where a fixed term lease is broken by a tenant, a landlord may charge a break lease fee. The fee must be for actual costs and be reasonable.
The tenancy with regards to number 3 has been broken and a new tenancy entered into. The tenancy as it relates to 3C remains on foot with the tenant remaining liable for the rent.
On 2 March 2024, the landlord informed the tenant that a break lease fee would be approximately $600.00 plus GST.
The tenant has subsequently received a break lease invoice for 3 Korowhiti in the sum of $1,150.00.
I consider that the landlord is entitled to break lease costs in relation to number 3 Korowhiti, as that lease has been broken. The tenant provided the lead for the replacement tenant and conducted the viewing.
The landlord says that the invoice includes break lease costs for 3A Korowhiti. I do not consider that the landlord is entitled to break lease costs for that property until such time as the lease is broken. At present, the landlord is entitled to and seeks ongoing rent. The landlord cannot have it both ways.
The costs for the break lease costs on number 3 only are excessive. As indicated, the tenant found the replacement tenant and carried out the sole viewing. I consider that reasonable break lease costs for number 3 Korowhiti only would be $644.00 ( incl GST). The tenant is ordered to pay $644.00 for break lease costs.
As Mehome Limited - As Agent For H Wang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4833038 — net $7,803.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$9,700.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$444.30	r and accepts that both power and water were used. The tenant is ordered to pay $444.30 for water and $1,195.21 for electricity.
Electricity charges	$1,195.21	h power and water were used. The tenant is ordered to pay $444.30 for water and $1,195.21 for electricity.
Break Lease fee	$644.00	Break Lease fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,803.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,803.95

Order

Steven John Marley and Lisa Marie Marley must pay Mehome Limited - As Agent For H Wang $7,803.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both tenants attended the hearing on 4 June 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
Claims were lodged by the landlord for water rates and a break lease fee on the day of the hearing. The tenant consented to those matters being heard today.
The tenancy commenced on 1 October 2023 and was a fixed term tenancy to end on 1 October 2024. The tenanted premises are 3 and 3A Korowhiti Road, Clarks Beach ( the premises”). Rent Arrears
The tenant evidence, which I accept, was that they told the landlord on 20 February 2024 that for personal reasons they would be leaving the premises at the end of the third week in March 2024.
The tenant subsequently vacated the premises on 10 March 2024, having paid all rent up to and including 17 February 2024.
The tenant had referred a potential acquaintance to the landlord as a possible replacement tenant. That person did subsequently take over the tenancy, but solely as it relates to 3, but not 3A Korowhiti Road.
The rent summary indicates that as at the date of this hearing the tenant is in arrears in the sum of $9,700.00. This has been calculated by adding; • The 6 weeks and 1 days rent owing for the period from 18 February 2024 up to 1 April 2024 for the full premises ( a total of $6,450.00); and • The shortfall on the rent paid by the replacement tenant for number 3 ($700.00 per week) and the rent not being paid for 3A ($350.00 per week) for the period between 1 April 2024 and 4 June 2024 ($3,250.00).
A tenant remains liable for rent during the course of a fixed term tenancy. There is no obligation on a landlord to mitigate their losses, although they have done so in part in this matter.
The tenant is to pay the landlord rent arrears of $9,700.00 for the period ending 4 June 2024. Outgoings
Section 39 RTA provides that a tenant will be responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises including, but not limited to electricity and water.
The landlord provided a summary and invoices for both electricity use and water use by the tenant. The tenant said that he was never told that he would be liable for outgoings. As a recent New Zealand resident, I accept that this may have been correct. In the circumstances, it is possible that the landlord could have been more proactive in bringing the matter to the attention of the tenant. That being said, the tenant is liable for and accepts that both power and water were used. The tenant is ordered to pay $444.30 for water and $1,195.21 for electricity. Break Lease fee
Where a fixed term lease is broken by a tenant, a landlord may charge a break lease fee. The fee must be for actual costs and be reasonable.
The tenancy with regards to number 3 has been broken and a new tenancy entered into. The tenancy as it relates to 3C remains on foot with the tenant remaining liable for the rent.
On 2 March 2024, the landlord informed the tenant that a break lease fee would be approximately $600.00 plus GST.
The tenant has subsequently received a break lease invoice for 3 Korowhiti in the sum of $1,150.00.
I consider that the landlord is entitled to break lease costs in relation to number 3 Korowhiti, as that lease has been broken. The tenant provided the lead for the replacement tenant and conducted the viewing.
The landlord says that the invoice includes break lease costs for 3A Korowhiti. I do not consider that the landlord is entitled to break lease costs for that property until such time as the lease is broken. At present, the landlord is entitled to and seeks ongoing rent. The landlord cannot have it both ways.
The costs for the break lease costs on number 3 only are excessive. As indicated, the tenant found the replacement tenant and carried out the sole viewing. I consider that reasonable break lease costs for number 3 Korowhiti only would be $644.00 ( incl GST). The tenant is ordered to pay $644.00 for break lease costs.
As Mehome Limited - As Agent For H Wang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee

Tenancy Tribunal case 4833038 — Rent arrears at 3 & 3A Korowhiti Road, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4833038 — Rent arrears at 3 & 3A Korowhiti Road, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions