What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4866863?

The tribunal order states: Judith Mary Harrison is to pay Peter Charles Bone And Lynne Tunna As The

How much money was awarded in case 4866863?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $33.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6.74 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,121.43 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $18.65 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $80.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4866863?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4866863?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11020499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4866863?

The tribunal order states: Judith Mary Harrison is to pay Peter Charles Bone And Lynne Tunna As The

How much money was awarded in case 4866863?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $33.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6.74 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,121.43 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $18.65 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $80.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4866863?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4866863?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11020499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Bridal Place, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4866863 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

3 Bridal Place, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4866863 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4866863 — net $2,356.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09 April 2024	$2,121.43	Rent arrears to 09 April 2024
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$33.56	Light bulbs/batteries
Garage smoke alarm and battery	$18.65	Garage smoke alarm and battery
Hall smoke alarm	$80.44	Hall smoke alarm
Curtain cheat replacement	$6.74	Curtain cheat replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,356.26
Bond	$3,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,356.26

Claims and awards for application 4866863 — net $2,356.26 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 09 April 2024

Amount: $2,121.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 09 April 2024

Cleaning

Amount: $75.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Light bulbs/batteries

Amount: $33.56
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs/batteries

Garage smoke alarm and battery

Amount: $18.65
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Garage smoke alarm and battery

Hall smoke alarm

Amount: $80.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Hall smoke alarm

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Judith Mary Harrison is to pay Peter Charles Bone And Lynne Tunna As The Trustees For The Peter And Christine Bone Family Trust & The Tunna Family Trust $2,356.26 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,300.00 (6265447-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Peter Charles Bone And Lynne Tunna As The Trustees For The Peter And Christine Bone Family Trust & The Tunna Family Trust: $2,356.26 Judith Mary Harrison: $943.74

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person. The tenant attended the hearing via telephone.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 26 March 2024, this Tribunal issued an Order by Consent (No. 4812760, 4814079). This order provided that the tenancy would terminate on 09 April 2024. This order also dismissed the tenant’s claim for imposing unreasonable conditions and the landlord’s claim for misrepresentation.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal to hear the claim for misrepresentation as part of this claim. As the misrepresentation claim was dismissed by this Tribunal on 26 March 2024, I am unable to issue orders in respect of it.
The landlord has also made a claim for harassment. I explained to the parties during the hearing that I do not have jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to determine claims for harassment against the landlord.

How much is owed for rent?

Section 40(1)(a) of the RTA provides that the tenant shall “... pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement”.
The landlord provided a rent ledger showing that the tenant’s last rent payment was made on 8 March 2024. The tenant missed the payments due on 22 March 2024 and 5 April 2024. The tenancy terminated on 9 April 2024.
The tenant advised that she is not disputing the rent arrears due and says that the sum due can be taken from the bond. The tenant says she recorded this in the bond refund form. I note that the bond is paid as security for the observance and performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA. There is no provision under the RTA or the tenancy agreement which permits the tenant to withhold rent because it will be covered by the bond.
I find that the tenant breached section 40(1)(a) of the RTA by failing to pay rent as and when it fell due. I award $2,121.43 in rent arrears.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides that the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenant left did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and that the landlord had to replace light bulbs. The landlord claims: a. $160.36 in mileage to attend to the premises to clean, repair, purchase and replace missing / broken items and to attend to the smoke alarm consultant; and b. $33.56 to replace the LED light bulbs.
At the hearing, the tenant advised that she was not disputing the lightbulb claims. I award $33.56 (including GST) for this claim.
With regard to cleaning of the premises, the landlord’s oral evidence and sworn affidavit is that the premises were very dirty. The landlord says it took 3 days of the landlord’s time to clean it. The tenant’s oral evidence is that the premises were left in an exceptionally clean condition.
The only photographic evidence the landlord provided in support of landlord’s claim for cleaning were photographs of the bathroom sink and the shower. The tenant has provided photographs of the premises. None of the photographs provided by either party are date stamped. Both parties say the photographs were taken at the end of the tenancy.
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 they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
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.
It is the landlord who has the burden to prove that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. When the Tribunal is called upon to decide claims for or relating to cleaning of the premises, if there are no photographs / videos taken to illustrate the condition of the premises on termination, it is extremely difficult on the face of competing evidence from the parties to determine the state of the property on termination.
The two photographs provided by the landlord show that the bathroom sink and the shower were not left reasonably clean and tidy. I award $75.00 (inclusive of GST) for the landlord’s time spent cleaning these areas (I have allowed 3 hours at $25 per hour).
The remainder of the claim related to cleaning is dismissed. I also dismiss the claim for mileage to travel to purchase / replace the missing items, attend to the smoke alarm consultant. I consider these costs to be the costs involved in owning a rental property.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the following sums for damage/loss the landlord says were caused during the tenancy: a. $6.74 for a broken curtain cleat in one of the bedrooms; b. $46.22 for a broken shower outlet grill in main bathroom; a. $80.44 as the smoke alarm consultant’s call out fee for a missing hallway smoke alarm; b. $8.66 for a missing garage smoke alarm; and c. $9.99 for a missing batteries that belonged to the garage smoke alarm.
The tenant is not disputing the claim in paragraph 19a) above and I award $6.74 (including GST) in respect of this claim.
Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 tenant says that as the garage smoke alarm was not connected, she thought it was rubbish and threw it and the batteries away. The landlord said he explained to the tenant at the handover of the property that the garage alarm had been disconnected by the previous tenant.
I consider that the tenant’s actions of throwing away the smoke alarm and batteries without first checking with the landlord were careless and award $18.65 (including GST) for these claims.
The landlord says that the hall smoke alarm which had only recently been installed was removed from the premises during the tenancy and the cost to install it was $80.44. The tenant denies removing the smoke alarm. On balance, I find the smoke alarm was removed and award $80.44 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord says that the shower grill was around 8 years old. He has provided a photograph of the damaged grill, however, the landlord says that due to the nature of the damage to the shower grill, the damage cannot be seen in a photograph. The tenant denies that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
I accept that this damage was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved that the damage was careless or intentional.
I am required to consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken the age of the item (8 years) and applied a life span of 25 years. 1 I 1 The Inland Revenue in its document: General depreciation rates, IR26, September 2020 states plumbing fixtures have a live span of 25 years. award $26.00 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with her claim. For this reason, I decline the tenant’s application for suppression of her name and identifying details.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4866863 — net $2,356.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 09 April 2024	$2,121.43	Rent arrears to 09 April 2024
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$33.56	Light bulbs/batteries
Garage smoke alarm and battery	$18.65	Garage smoke alarm and battery
Hall smoke alarm	$80.44	Hall smoke alarm
Curtain cheat replacement	$6.74	Curtain cheat replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,356.26
Bond	$3,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,356.26

Claims and awards for application 4866863 — net $2,356.26 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 09 April 2024

Amount: $2,121.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 09 April 2024

Cleaning

Amount: $75.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Light bulbs/batteries

Amount: $33.56
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Light bulbs/batteries

Garage smoke alarm and battery

Amount: $18.65
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Garage smoke alarm and battery

Hall smoke alarm

Amount: $80.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Hall smoke alarm

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Judith Mary Harrison is to pay Peter Charles Bone And Lynne Tunna As The Trustees For The Peter And Christine Bone Family Trust & The Tunna Family Trust $2,356.26 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,300.00 (6265447-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Peter Charles Bone And Lynne Tunna As The Trustees For The Peter And Christine Bone Family Trust & The Tunna Family Trust: $2,356.26 Judith Mary Harrison: $943.74

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person. The tenant attended the hearing via telephone.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 26 March 2024, this Tribunal issued an Order by Consent (No. 4812760, 4814079). This order provided that the tenancy would terminate on 09 April 2024. This order also dismissed the tenant’s claim for imposing unreasonable conditions and the landlord’s claim for misrepresentation.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal to hear the claim for misrepresentation as part of this claim. As the misrepresentation claim was dismissed by this Tribunal on 26 March 2024, I am unable to issue orders in respect of it.
The landlord has also made a claim for harassment. I explained to the parties during the hearing that I do not have jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to determine claims for harassment against the landlord.

How much is owed for rent?

Section 40(1)(a) of the RTA provides that the tenant shall “... pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement”.
The landlord provided a rent ledger showing that the tenant’s last rent payment was made on 8 March 2024. The tenant missed the payments due on 22 March 2024 and 5 April 2024. The tenancy terminated on 9 April 2024.
The tenant advised that she is not disputing the rent arrears due and says that the sum due can be taken from the bond. The tenant says she recorded this in the bond refund form. I note that the bond is paid as security for the observance and performance of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA. There is no provision under the RTA or the tenancy agreement which permits the tenant to withhold rent because it will be covered by the bond.
I find that the tenant breached section 40(1)(a) of the RTA by failing to pay rent as and when it fell due. I award $2,121.43 in rent arrears.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides that the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenant left did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and that the landlord had to replace light bulbs. The landlord claims: a. $160.36 in mileage to attend to the premises to clean, repair, purchase and replace missing / broken items and to attend to the smoke alarm consultant; and b. $33.56 to replace the LED light bulbs.
At the hearing, the tenant advised that she was not disputing the lightbulb claims. I award $33.56 (including GST) for this claim.
With regard to cleaning of the premises, the landlord’s oral evidence and sworn affidavit is that the premises were very dirty. The landlord says it took 3 days of the landlord’s time to clean it. The tenant’s oral evidence is that the premises were left in an exceptionally clean condition.
The only photographic evidence the landlord provided in support of landlord’s claim for cleaning were photographs of the bathroom sink and the shower. The tenant has provided photographs of the premises. None of the photographs provided by either party are date stamped. Both parties say the photographs were taken at the end of the tenancy.
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 they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
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.
It is the landlord who has the burden to prove that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. When the Tribunal is called upon to decide claims for or relating to cleaning of the premises, if there are no photographs / videos taken to illustrate the condition of the premises on termination, it is extremely difficult on the face of competing evidence from the parties to determine the state of the property on termination.
The two photographs provided by the landlord show that the bathroom sink and the shower were not left reasonably clean and tidy. I award $75.00 (inclusive of GST) for the landlord’s time spent cleaning these areas (I have allowed 3 hours at $25 per hour).
The remainder of the claim related to cleaning is dismissed. I also dismiss the claim for mileage to travel to purchase / replace the missing items, attend to the smoke alarm consultant. I consider these costs to be the costs involved in owning a rental property.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the following sums for damage/loss the landlord says were caused during the tenancy: a. $6.74 for a broken curtain cleat in one of the bedrooms; b. $46.22 for a broken shower outlet grill in main bathroom; a. $80.44 as the smoke alarm consultant’s call out fee for a missing hallway smoke alarm; b. $8.66 for a missing garage smoke alarm; and c. $9.99 for a missing batteries that belonged to the garage smoke alarm.
The tenant is not disputing the claim in paragraph 19a) above and I award $6.74 (including GST) in respect of this claim.
Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 tenant says that as the garage smoke alarm was not connected, she thought it was rubbish and threw it and the batteries away. The landlord said he explained to the tenant at the handover of the property that the garage alarm had been disconnected by the previous tenant.
I consider that the tenant’s actions of throwing away the smoke alarm and batteries without first checking with the landlord were careless and award $18.65 (including GST) for these claims.
The landlord says that the hall smoke alarm which had only recently been installed was removed from the premises during the tenancy and the cost to install it was $80.44. The tenant denies removing the smoke alarm. On balance, I find the smoke alarm was removed and award $80.44 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord says that the shower grill was around 8 years old. He has provided a photograph of the damaged grill, however, the landlord says that due to the nature of the damage to the shower grill, the damage cannot be seen in a photograph. The tenant denies that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
I accept that this damage was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved that the damage was careless or intentional.
I am required to consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken the age of the item (8 years) and applied a life span of 25 years. 1 I 1 The Inland Revenue in its document: General depreciation rates, IR26, September 2020 states plumbing fixtures have a live span of 25 years. award $26.00 (including GST) for this claim.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with her claim. For this reason, I decline the tenant’s application for suppression of her name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4866863 — Rent arrears at 3 Bridal Place, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4866863 — Rent arrears at 3 Bridal Place, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with her 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