What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871906?

The tribunal order states: Cheryl Anne Fay Edmonds must pay Arun Nand and Ambika Nand $3,672.80

How much money was awarded in case 4871906?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,102.36 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871906?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871906?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10839674-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871906?

The tribunal order states: Cheryl Anne Fay Edmonds must pay Arun Nand and Ambika Nand $3,672.80

How much money was awarded in case 4871906?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,102.36 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871906?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871906?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10839674-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39 Pukepoto Road, Kaitaia 0410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4871906 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4871906 — net $3,672.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 July 2023	$5,102.36	Rent arrears to 24 July 2023
Pest control	$250.00	Pest control
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	36. I will award $250.00.
Net award	$3,672.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,672.80

Order

Cheryl Anne Fay Edmonds must pay Arun Nand and Ambika Nand $3,672.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3229264-021) to Arun Nand and Ambika Nand immediately.

Reasons

Background

The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, rubbish removal, cleaning, and repairs (replacement of two doors, repairs to door jamb, painting, and replacement of carpet).
The hearing took place in Kaitaia on 17 September 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Mrs Nand attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Rent arrears
The landlord seeks rent arrears to 21 August 2023. The landlord’s rent record shows rent arrears of $7,069.50 to that date.
I asked Mrs Nand why she is seeking rent to 21 August 2023. Mrs Nand said that was the date that the key was returned to her local property manager, Pam.
Ms Edmonds said that he left the property on 24 July 2023, which was the agreed end date. She said that she left late at night. She returned the key by placing it in an out-of-sight spot outside Pam’s house. She then sent a message to Pam the next day telling her where the key is.
Tenants are only liable to pay rent to the end of the tenancy. If a tenant leaves the property but fails to return the key, they do not continue to be liable for rent but they can be liable for the cost of changing the locks.
In this instance it is not proven that the tenant remained in occupation after 24 July 2023.
The tenant is liable for rent arrears to that date. Cleaning and rubbish removal
At the end of a tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1
Mrs Nand provided some photographs that were taken by her agent, Pam, after Ms Edmonds vacated. Mrs Nand was not able to confirm the date that Pam carried out the final inspection.
The photographs show: a. A large blue polybin that is fill to overflowing. b. Two black rubbish sacks, a chest of drawers and other items piled up next to a wooden fence. c. The inside of a very dirty oven. d. Photos of the interior, most showing tidy and empty rooms, but one showing a pile of furniture and belongings near the kitchen and another showing a pile of bedding, clothing, a chair, and other items in a bedroom. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
Ms Edmonds said that the blue polybin is hers but when she left the property it was not as full as it is in the landlord’s photograph.
She said that the photograph of the items in the kitchen, the rubbish next to the fence, and the photograph of the oven are not the tenanted premises. They are photographs of another property. Ms Edmonds explained the differences between these photographs and the actual house. There are other photographs in the landlord’s evidence, such as a photograph of a vanity next to a bath, that are also not photographs of 39 Pukepoto Road.
The Tribunal is heavily reliant on photographs or video evidence when it comes to claims for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord did not provide a dated and formal final inspection report. Mrs Nand did not see the premises herself at the end of the tenancy. She is reliant on the photographs from Pam, which are undated and few in number.
I accept Ms Edmonds’ statement that the photographs of the oven, the kitchen, and of the black rubbish bags outside are not of the tenanted premises. Ms Edmonds’ explanation of the discrepancies in the photos was clear and persuasive.
It is not proven that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I will not make any award for cleaning.
The invoices from Chameleon Property services include lawnmowing, exterior house cleaning, water blasting the deck and footpaths, and unblocking drains. The landlord’s photographs do not show that the lawns were overgrown when Ms Edmonds left on 24 July (the Chameleon invoice is dated 12 September, by which time the lawns probably did need mowing). Tenants are not responsible for washing the outside of the house, waterblasting paths, or cleaning drains.
Ms Edmonds did leave a small amount of rubbish at the end of the tenancy. I will award $100.00 for rubbish removal. Repairs
The claim seeks: a. Replacement of two doors. b. Repair of a door jamb (front door). c. Painting of the entire interior. d. Replacement of the carpet.
In any claim for damage, the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is beyond fair wear and tear.
The tenant will then be liable for the proven repair cost unless the tenant can provide that the damage was not caused by them or by anyone who was at the premises with their consent. If the item cannot be repaired and has to be replaced, the Tribunal must consider deprecation.
In this instance, Mrs Nand did not provide an entry inspection report, or copies of any inspections carried out during the tenancy. She has not proven the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Mrs Nand provided: a. An end-of-tenancy photograph showing the laundry door, which has a wooden patch over part of the lower panel. b. A photograph of a damaged door frame, which Mrs Nand said is the front door. c. A photograph showing a large hole in the wall (unknown location).
Ms Edmonds said that: a. The wooden patch was on the laundry door from the beginning of the tenancy. It is covering a catflap. b. The front door was not damaged when she left the property. c. There were no holes in the wall when she left the property, and she does not know whether this photograph is of 39 Pukepoto Road.
Ms Edmonds’ questioning of the photographs, together with the fact that Mrs Nand is not able to confirm the accuracy of them, casts doubt on the landlord’s evidence. I also note that the landlord has not made any claim, or produced any invoice, for repair of the large hole in the wall.
The tenant is not liable for damage that occurred before her tenancy began, or after her tenancy ended (for instance, if someone attempted to break into the house after she left).
Even if all of the photographs were accepted, they would fall well short of justifying a claim for re-painting of the entire interior.
My findings are: a. It is not proven that the laundry door or the front door were damaged during the period of Ms Edmonds’ tenancy. b. It is not proven that there was damage to the walls beyond fair and tear during the period of the tenancy.
The claim seeks replacement of the carpet on the grounds that it was badly flea infested and also stained. Mrs Nand said that Ms Edmonds had several cats and kittens at the house during the tenancy.
Ms Edmonds said that she had two cats, and one of her cats had a litter of kittens near the end of the tenancy. She said that the cats remained outside.
Mrs Nand said that carpet professionals advised her that the flea infestation was so bad that it could not be treated, and the carpet needed to be replaced.
The evidence provided in support of the landlord’s claim is extremely limited. Some of the landlord’s photographs show (from a distance) stains on the carpet, but there is no evidence of the condition of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. There are no statements or reports from persons who assessed the carpet.
I am willing to accept that there was a flea infestation at the property. This seems unlikely to be an invention by the landlord. Without substantially more evidence this does not justify making the tenant liable for the cost of replacing the carpet.
I will make a nominal award for pest treatment.
I will award $250.00. Filing fee, bond, name suppression
The landlord has been partially successful in this application. I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
The proven claim exceeds the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.
The landlord sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression if a party has “wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings”. The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in this instance. Name suppression is not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4871906 — net $3,672.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24 July 2023	$5,102.36	Rent arrears to 24 July 2023
Pest control	$250.00	Pest control
Rubbish removal	$100.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	36. I will award $250.00.
Net award	$3,672.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,672.80

Order

Cheryl Anne Fay Edmonds must pay Arun Nand and Ambika Nand $3,672.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (3229264-021) to Arun Nand and Ambika Nand immediately.

Reasons

Background

The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, rubbish removal, cleaning, and repairs (replacement of two doors, repairs to door jamb, painting, and replacement of carpet).
The hearing took place in Kaitaia on 17 September 2024. Both parties attended the hearing. Mrs Nand attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Rent arrears
The landlord seeks rent arrears to 21 August 2023. The landlord’s rent record shows rent arrears of $7,069.50 to that date.
I asked Mrs Nand why she is seeking rent to 21 August 2023. Mrs Nand said that was the date that the key was returned to her local property manager, Pam.
Ms Edmonds said that he left the property on 24 July 2023, which was the agreed end date. She said that she left late at night. She returned the key by placing it in an out-of-sight spot outside Pam’s house. She then sent a message to Pam the next day telling her where the key is.
Tenants are only liable to pay rent to the end of the tenancy. If a tenant leaves the property but fails to return the key, they do not continue to be liable for rent but they can be liable for the cost of changing the locks.
In this instance it is not proven that the tenant remained in occupation after 24 July 2023.
The tenant is liable for rent arrears to that date. Cleaning and rubbish removal
At the end of a tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish and leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1
Mrs Nand provided some photographs that were taken by her agent, Pam, after Ms Edmonds vacated. Mrs Nand was not able to confirm the date that Pam carried out the final inspection.
The photographs show: a. A large blue polybin that is fill to overflowing. b. Two black rubbish sacks, a chest of drawers and other items piled up next to a wooden fence. c. The inside of a very dirty oven. d. Photos of the interior, most showing tidy and empty rooms, but one showing a pile of furniture and belongings near the kitchen and another showing a pile of bedding, clothing, a chair, and other items in a bedroom. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
Ms Edmonds said that the blue polybin is hers but when she left the property it was not as full as it is in the landlord’s photograph.
She said that the photograph of the items in the kitchen, the rubbish next to the fence, and the photograph of the oven are not the tenanted premises. They are photographs of another property. Ms Edmonds explained the differences between these photographs and the actual house. There are other photographs in the landlord’s evidence, such as a photograph of a vanity next to a bath, that are also not photographs of 39 Pukepoto Road.
The Tribunal is heavily reliant on photographs or video evidence when it comes to claims for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord did not provide a dated and formal final inspection report. Mrs Nand did not see the premises herself at the end of the tenancy. She is reliant on the photographs from Pam, which are undated and few in number.
I accept Ms Edmonds’ statement that the photographs of the oven, the kitchen, and of the black rubbish bags outside are not of the tenanted premises. Ms Edmonds’ explanation of the discrepancies in the photos was clear and persuasive.
It is not proven that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I will not make any award for cleaning.
The invoices from Chameleon Property services include lawnmowing, exterior house cleaning, water blasting the deck and footpaths, and unblocking drains. The landlord’s photographs do not show that the lawns were overgrown when Ms Edmonds left on 24 July (the Chameleon invoice is dated 12 September, by which time the lawns probably did need mowing). Tenants are not responsible for washing the outside of the house, waterblasting paths, or cleaning drains.
Ms Edmonds did leave a small amount of rubbish at the end of the tenancy. I will award $100.00 for rubbish removal. Repairs
The claim seeks: a. Replacement of two doors. b. Repair of a door jamb (front door). c. Painting of the entire interior. d. Replacement of the carpet.
In any claim for damage, the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is beyond fair wear and tear.
The tenant will then be liable for the proven repair cost unless the tenant can provide that the damage was not caused by them or by anyone who was at the premises with their consent. If the item cannot be repaired and has to be replaced, the Tribunal must consider deprecation.
In this instance, Mrs Nand did not provide an entry inspection report, or copies of any inspections carried out during the tenancy. She has not proven the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Mrs Nand provided: a. An end-of-tenancy photograph showing the laundry door, which has a wooden patch over part of the lower panel. b. A photograph of a damaged door frame, which Mrs Nand said is the front door. c. A photograph showing a large hole in the wall (unknown location).
Ms Edmonds said that: a. The wooden patch was on the laundry door from the beginning of the tenancy. It is covering a catflap. b. The front door was not damaged when she left the property. c. There were no holes in the wall when she left the property, and she does not know whether this photograph is of 39 Pukepoto Road.
Ms Edmonds’ questioning of the photographs, together with the fact that Mrs Nand is not able to confirm the accuracy of them, casts doubt on the landlord’s evidence. I also note that the landlord has not made any claim, or produced any invoice, for repair of the large hole in the wall.
The tenant is not liable for damage that occurred before her tenancy began, or after her tenancy ended (for instance, if someone attempted to break into the house after she left).
Even if all of the photographs were accepted, they would fall well short of justifying a claim for re-painting of the entire interior.
My findings are: a. It is not proven that the laundry door or the front door were damaged during the period of Ms Edmonds’ tenancy. b. It is not proven that there was damage to the walls beyond fair and tear during the period of the tenancy.
The claim seeks replacement of the carpet on the grounds that it was badly flea infested and also stained. Mrs Nand said that Ms Edmonds had several cats and kittens at the house during the tenancy.
Ms Edmonds said that she had two cats, and one of her cats had a litter of kittens near the end of the tenancy. She said that the cats remained outside.
Mrs Nand said that carpet professionals advised her that the flea infestation was so bad that it could not be treated, and the carpet needed to be replaced.
The evidence provided in support of the landlord’s claim is extremely limited. Some of the landlord’s photographs show (from a distance) stains on the carpet, but there is no evidence of the condition of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. There are no statements or reports from persons who assessed the carpet.
I am willing to accept that there was a flea infestation at the property. This seems unlikely to be an invention by the landlord. Without substantially more evidence this does not justify making the tenant liable for the cost of replacing the carpet.
I will make a nominal award for pest treatment.
I will award $250.00. Filing fee, bond, name suppression
The landlord has been partially successful in this application. I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
The proven claim exceeds the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.
The landlord sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression if a party has “wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings”. The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in this instance. Name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871906 — Rent arrears at 39 Pukepoto Road, Kaitaia 0410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871906 — Rent arrears at 39 Pukepoto Road, Kaitaia 0410

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions