What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4856640?

The tribunal order states: Danny Harrington must pay Sunaco Limited $1,591.59 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4856640?

Electricity Charges: $645.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $925.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856640?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10858421-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4856640?

The tribunal order states: Danny Harrington must pay Sunaco Limited $1,591.59 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4856640?

Electricity Charges: $645.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $925.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856640?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10858421-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36B Princes Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4856640 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856640 — net $1,591.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$925.71	Rent arrears
Electricity charges	$645.44	Electricity charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,591.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,591.59

Order

Danny Harrington must pay Sunaco Limited $1,591.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims in respect of rent and power arrears are allowed. The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent, power and water arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent, power and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 7 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.
During the hearing the landlord confirmed that the bond has been released in full and applied to the rent arrears. The remaining balance of $925.71 is ordered accordingly.
The landlord has also claimed water and electricity arrears for January, February and March 2024.
The tenant does not accept these claims as he does not have his own water meter. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the building has one water meter, and that the tenant’s usage is charged as a percentage.
The landlord produced evidence confirming that the tenant’s premises have an exclusive power meter.
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1086 (“RTA”)). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet that they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s39(4) RTA). They are not liable for fixed charges.
The landlord’s claim for electricity arrears is allowed as amended. I award the claim for electricity usage for January, February and March 2024 but dismiss the claim for electricity fixed charges for these months. In considering this matter I have reviewed a number of Tribunal decisions where fixed electricity charges have been deducted. I refer to [2024] NZTT 4822438 by way of example. The amounts I have awarded also include GST. The breakdown is as follows: A. 9/1/24 to 8/2/24 $189.29 plus GST B. 9/2/24 to 8/3/24 $185.99 plus GST C. 9/3/24 to 7/4/24 $185.99 plus GST
The landlord’s claim for water arrears is dismissed for the reasons recorded above.

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.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not return the keys. She says that the tenant did not return the entrance door key. The tenant says that the landlord replaced the entrance door which came with a new key. He says he returned the new key which came with the door.
The landlord has not provided any photographic evidence confirming what keys were issued to the tenant at the start of the tenancy. There is also no photographic evidence confirming which keys were handed back by the tenant at the conclusion of the tenancy.
Accordingly, the claim for key replacement is dismissed.
The landlord claims that the following items were also missing at the end of the tenancy: In door plants and a vine decoration set.
The landlord says that she had two peace lily plants in the living room which the tenant removed. The landlord says that the photographs of the pot plants were taken on 15 August 2023. The tenancy started on 22 August 2023.
The tenant does not accept this claim. The claim is for $130.00 and is an estimate only based on how much she paid for them. The plants were purchased from Bunnings. The landlord does not have a replacement payment receipt for these.
The landlord also claims that there was a vine decoration set in the living room. The landlord says that this was removed from the living room. The tenant does not accept this claim. The photograph of this item was also taken on 15 August 2023. The landlord purchased the decoration set from a shop in Onehunga for $25.00 but does not have a purchase receipt or a receipt confirming that she has had to replace the item.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for these claims. The minimal evidence is unreliable and does not convince me that the tenant is responsible for these claims. At the very least I would have expected photographic evidence taken on the day the tenant moved in and on the day he vacated. I would also expect an actual expense claim in the form of payment receipts for the replaced items. The landlord must prove loss which she has not done.
The claims for plants and the vine decoration set are 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.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the following during the tenancy: Aluminon venetian blinds:
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the bedroom blinds. The tenant says that he did not damage the blinds.
The landlord does not have an expense claim for this. She says that this is the approximate costs from Bunnings. There were also no entry photographs taken at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has only provided exit photographs taken on 7 April 2024. Carpet in bedroom and stairs:
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the carpet. Photographic evidence taken on 7 April 2024 confirmed stains on the carpet The landlord had to arrange a commercial carpet cleaner to clean the carpet. The tenant does not accept this claim.
The landlord does not have a payment receipt for this. There were also no entry photographs taken on the day the tenant moved in which confirms the condition of the carpet. Wall damage:
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the wall in the bedroom (which is next to the kitchen). The tenant does not accept this claim.
The landlord does not have a payment receipt from the handyman who repaired the wall. And the landlord has not provided any entry photographs confirming the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
In the absence of proper expense claims with payment receipts the above damage claims must be dismissed. It is also important that a landlord provides proper photographic evidence taken at the start and conclusion of a tenancy.
Accordingly, the landlord’s damage claims are dismissed.
The landlord is also claiming compensation for the tenant breaking his fixed term contract. As this was not included in the landlord’s original application I do consider this claim.
Because Sunaco Limited has succeeded with her claims for rent and electricity arrears I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application has not been wholly or substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4856640 — net $1,591.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$925.71	Rent arrears
Electricity charges	$645.44	Electricity charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,591.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,591.59

Order

Danny Harrington must pay Sunaco Limited $1,591.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims in respect of rent and power arrears are allowed. The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent, power and water arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent, power and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 7 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.
During the hearing the landlord confirmed that the bond has been released in full and applied to the rent arrears. The remaining balance of $925.71 is ordered accordingly.
The landlord has also claimed water and electricity arrears for January, February and March 2024.
The tenant does not accept these claims as he does not have his own water meter. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the building has one water meter, and that the tenant’s usage is charged as a percentage.
The landlord produced evidence confirming that the tenant’s premises have an exclusive power meter.
A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to their occupation of the premises or to their use of the facilities (see s39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1086 (“RTA”)). Therefore, tenants are only liable for the electricity, gas, telephone and internet that they use, and for water charges based on consumption (s39(4) RTA). They are not liable for fixed charges.
The landlord’s claim for electricity arrears is allowed as amended. I award the claim for electricity usage for January, February and March 2024 but dismiss the claim for electricity fixed charges for these months. In considering this matter I have reviewed a number of Tribunal decisions where fixed electricity charges have been deducted. I refer to [2024] NZTT 4822438 by way of example. The amounts I have awarded also include GST. The breakdown is as follows: A. 9/1/24 to 8/2/24 $189.29 plus GST B. 9/2/24 to 8/3/24 $185.99 plus GST C. 9/3/24 to 7/4/24 $185.99 plus GST
The landlord’s claim for water arrears is dismissed for the reasons recorded above.

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.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not return the keys. She says that the tenant did not return the entrance door key. The tenant says that the landlord replaced the entrance door which came with a new key. He says he returned the new key which came with the door.
The landlord has not provided any photographic evidence confirming what keys were issued to the tenant at the start of the tenancy. There is also no photographic evidence confirming which keys were handed back by the tenant at the conclusion of the tenancy.
Accordingly, the claim for key replacement is dismissed.
The landlord claims that the following items were also missing at the end of the tenancy: In door plants and a vine decoration set.
The landlord says that she had two peace lily plants in the living room which the tenant removed. The landlord says that the photographs of the pot plants were taken on 15 August 2023. The tenancy started on 22 August 2023.
The tenant does not accept this claim. The claim is for $130.00 and is an estimate only based on how much she paid for them. The plants were purchased from Bunnings. The landlord does not have a replacement payment receipt for these.
The landlord also claims that there was a vine decoration set in the living room. The landlord says that this was removed from the living room. The tenant does not accept this claim. The photograph of this item was also taken on 15 August 2023. The landlord purchased the decoration set from a shop in Onehunga for $25.00 but does not have a purchase receipt or a receipt confirming that she has had to replace the item.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for these claims. The minimal evidence is unreliable and does not convince me that the tenant is responsible for these claims. At the very least I would have expected photographic evidence taken on the day the tenant moved in and on the day he vacated. I would also expect an actual expense claim in the form of payment receipts for the replaced items. The landlord must prove loss which she has not done.
The claims for plants and the vine decoration set are 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.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the following during the tenancy: Aluminon venetian blinds:
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the bedroom blinds. The tenant says that he did not damage the blinds.
The landlord does not have an expense claim for this. She says that this is the approximate costs from Bunnings. There were also no entry photographs taken at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has only provided exit photographs taken on 7 April 2024. Carpet in bedroom and stairs:
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the carpet. Photographic evidence taken on 7 April 2024 confirmed stains on the carpet The landlord had to arrange a commercial carpet cleaner to clean the carpet. The tenant does not accept this claim.
The landlord does not have a payment receipt for this. There were also no entry photographs taken on the day the tenant moved in which confirms the condition of the carpet. Wall damage:
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the wall in the bedroom (which is next to the kitchen). The tenant does not accept this claim.
The landlord does not have a payment receipt from the handyman who repaired the wall. And the landlord has not provided any entry photographs confirming the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
In the absence of proper expense claims with payment receipts the above damage claims must be dismissed. It is also important that a landlord provides proper photographic evidence taken at the start and conclusion of a tenancy.
Accordingly, the landlord’s damage claims are dismissed.
The landlord is also claiming compensation for the tenant breaking his fixed term contract. As this was not included in the landlord’s original application I do consider this claim.
Because Sunaco Limited has succeeded with her claims for rent and electricity arrears I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is not entitled to name suppression as the application has not been wholly or substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856640 — Rent arrears at 36B Princes Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856640 — Rent arrears at 36B Princes Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, power 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, power 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