What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4882064?

The tribunal order states: It is declared that the landlord is entitled to retain the bond of $1,400.00 relating

How much money was awarded in case 4882064?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882064?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882064?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11206259-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4882064?

The tribunal order states: It is declared that the landlord is entitled to retain the bond of $1,400.00 relating

How much money was awarded in case 4882064?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882064?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882064?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11206259-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Ford Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4882064 — Cleanliness

Order

It is declared that the landlord is entitled to retain the bond of $1,400.00 relating to this tenancy.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
Victoria Panea Hemopo-Gear must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Judy Pove the filing fee of $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 December 2024.
On 8 May 2024, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond of $1,400.00. On 1 October 2024 the landlord applied for payment from the bond of cleaning costs, rubbish removal and repairs to doors and windows. Background
The tenancy commenced on 18 November 2011 and ended on 12 October 2018. The Tribunal is therefore tasked with deciding a case which relates to events more than 6 years ago.
The tenant signed a bond refund form on 12 October 2018 when the tenancy ended. The bond of $1,400.00 was refunded to the landlord on 16 October 2018.
The tenant says she signed a blank form and left it to the landlord to complete. The employee acting on behalf of the landlord in 2018 was not called as a witness (and may not be available).
On the face of the bond refund form, it has been signed by both parties on 12 October 2018 with the boxes “Pay the tenant(s)” and “Hold in dispute” crossed out by hand. Landlord’s Records
There was an overpayment of rent of $298.58. The landlord applied $56.33 of this amount towards the vacated debt. The remaining credit of $242.25 has since been transferred to the tenant’s new rental property which is under the management of the same property management company.
In January 2021 the tenant discovered that the landlord was still holding this credit. The landlord asked if she wanted to transfer the credit to her existing property. On 11 March 2021 the tenant asked if the credit balance could be paid to her. On or about 12 March 2021, in a text message, the tenant said that she wanted the credit transferred “towards the arrears”. The ledger for her new rental property shows receipt of the credit towards the rent on 24 March 2021.
The tenant also complains that she was not provided with the invoices for the vacated debt claimed by the landlord until this year. She had no opportunity to dispute them. Concern was expressed about the accounting treatment of amounts applied towards rubbish removal, cleaning, and repairs at the premises. It was claimed that the landlord had backdated entries to show how the bond had been applied in 2018. The tenant ledger in 2021 did not show all the entries included in the 2024 ledger, indicating that the accounts had been prepared later. The landlord had taken the bond without providing the supporting invoices for the expenses now claimed.
I agree with the landlord that the failure to transfer the rent credit of $242.25 to the tenant’s new tenancy can be characterised as an administrative error. I do not see how this could constitute a breach of the relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) relating to landlords’ obligations to keep records. If it was a failure to apportion the rent on termination of the tenancy pursuant to section 31 of the Act, or to comply with clause 29 of the tenancy agreement (which apportions the water charges at the end of the tenancy) it has been corrected.
The tenant complained that the landlord had ticked the “outgoings” box in the bond refund form, when no outgoings were in fact claimed. However, again I cannot see how this could amount to a breach of section 39 of the Act as claimed. The Act does not specify any record-keeping obligations for outgoings.
The tenant complained that the accounting documents were prepared after the fact. I am unable to determine whether the landlord recorded the various transactions at the time, or if they were entered into the accounting records afterwards. I am prepared to assume that they were completed later based on the evidence of the tenant’s support person, who has relevant business qualifications. The tenant’s support person placed emphasis on discrepancies between a ledger dated 28 January 2021 and a ledger dated 19 June 2024. The 2021 ledger did not include transactions recorded on the later document.
I am not persuaded that this casts any doubt on the accuracy of the landlord’s records. The Tribunal is not tasked with auditing such records and does not have the expertise to confirm compliance with any applicable accounting standards. There is no objective reason to believe that the entries are false, or do not reflect the actual and appropriate accounting treatment of credits applied to water charges and other costs, including for example, a credit of $185.99 applied towards the final water invoice and a glass invoice. Vacated Debt
The tenant disputed the vacated damages claimed by the landlord and said there was no proof the expenses were incurred during the tenancy.
The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the exit inspection report due to a change of computer systems. Nonetheless, the landlord produced invoices from October 2018 supporting all the amounts claimed and some emails and photographs supporting the cleaning costs, including from the owner and the cleaning company. I am satisfied that the landlord was entitled to retain the bond to meet these expenses, whether the tenant signed a blank bond refund form or not.
It follows that the tenant’s application must be dismissed. The bond was either refunded to the landlord with the tenant’s consent (because she signed the bond refund form) or the landlord was entitled to deduct amounts from the bond to meet the cost of cleaning and repairs. The rent credit has been applied in accordance with the tenant’s wishes, as communicated in 2021. There has been no breach of the Act that I can identify that has not been rectified.
As to the landlord’s application, the landlord confirmed that all the expenses were met by the bond. It is appropriate to declare that the landlord is entitled to retain the bond of $1,400.00. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The landlord’s application having succeeded, I award the filing fee.
The tenant requested suppression but has not been “wholly or substantially” successful (section 95A of the Act).

Order

It is declared that the landlord is entitled to retain the bond of $1,400.00 relating to this tenancy.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
Victoria Panea Hemopo-Gear must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Judy Pove the filing fee of $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 December 2024.
On 8 May 2024, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond of $1,400.00. On 1 October 2024 the landlord applied for payment from the bond of cleaning costs, rubbish removal and repairs to doors and windows. Background
The tenancy commenced on 18 November 2011 and ended on 12 October 2018. The Tribunal is therefore tasked with deciding a case which relates to events more than 6 years ago.
The tenant signed a bond refund form on 12 October 2018 when the tenancy ended. The bond of $1,400.00 was refunded to the landlord on 16 October 2018.
The tenant says she signed a blank form and left it to the landlord to complete. The employee acting on behalf of the landlord in 2018 was not called as a witness (and may not be available).
On the face of the bond refund form, it has been signed by both parties on 12 October 2018 with the boxes “Pay the tenant(s)” and “Hold in dispute” crossed out by hand. Landlord’s Records
There was an overpayment of rent of $298.58. The landlord applied $56.33 of this amount towards the vacated debt. The remaining credit of $242.25 has since been transferred to the tenant’s new rental property which is under the management of the same property management company.
In January 2021 the tenant discovered that the landlord was still holding this credit. The landlord asked if she wanted to transfer the credit to her existing property. On 11 March 2021 the tenant asked if the credit balance could be paid to her. On or about 12 March 2021, in a text message, the tenant said that she wanted the credit transferred “towards the arrears”. The ledger for her new rental property shows receipt of the credit towards the rent on 24 March 2021.
The tenant also complains that she was not provided with the invoices for the vacated debt claimed by the landlord until this year. She had no opportunity to dispute them. Concern was expressed about the accounting treatment of amounts applied towards rubbish removal, cleaning, and repairs at the premises. It was claimed that the landlord had backdated entries to show how the bond had been applied in 2018. The tenant ledger in 2021 did not show all the entries included in the 2024 ledger, indicating that the accounts had been prepared later. The landlord had taken the bond without providing the supporting invoices for the expenses now claimed.
I agree with the landlord that the failure to transfer the rent credit of $242.25 to the tenant’s new tenancy can be characterised as an administrative error. I do not see how this could constitute a breach of the relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) relating to landlords’ obligations to keep records. If it was a failure to apportion the rent on termination of the tenancy pursuant to section 31 of the Act, or to comply with clause 29 of the tenancy agreement (which apportions the water charges at the end of the tenancy) it has been corrected.
The tenant complained that the landlord had ticked the “outgoings” box in the bond refund form, when no outgoings were in fact claimed. However, again I cannot see how this could amount to a breach of section 39 of the Act as claimed. The Act does not specify any record-keeping obligations for outgoings.
The tenant complained that the accounting documents were prepared after the fact. I am unable to determine whether the landlord recorded the various transactions at the time, or if they were entered into the accounting records afterwards. I am prepared to assume that they were completed later based on the evidence of the tenant’s support person, who has relevant business qualifications. The tenant’s support person placed emphasis on discrepancies between a ledger dated 28 January 2021 and a ledger dated 19 June 2024. The 2021 ledger did not include transactions recorded on the later document.
I am not persuaded that this casts any doubt on the accuracy of the landlord’s records. The Tribunal is not tasked with auditing such records and does not have the expertise to confirm compliance with any applicable accounting standards. There is no objective reason to believe that the entries are false, or do not reflect the actual and appropriate accounting treatment of credits applied to water charges and other costs, including for example, a credit of $185.99 applied towards the final water invoice and a glass invoice. Vacated Debt
The tenant disputed the vacated damages claimed by the landlord and said there was no proof the expenses were incurred during the tenancy.
The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the exit inspection report due to a change of computer systems. Nonetheless, the landlord produced invoices from October 2018 supporting all the amounts claimed and some emails and photographs supporting the cleaning costs, including from the owner and the cleaning company. I am satisfied that the landlord was entitled to retain the bond to meet these expenses, whether the tenant signed a blank bond refund form or not.
It follows that the tenant’s application must be dismissed. The bond was either refunded to the landlord with the tenant’s consent (because she signed the bond refund form) or the landlord was entitled to deduct amounts from the bond to meet the cost of cleaning and repairs. The rent credit has been applied in accordance with the tenant’s wishes, as communicated in 2021. There has been no breach of the Act that I can identify that has not been rectified.
As to the landlord’s application, the landlord confirmed that all the expenses were met by the bond. It is appropriate to declare that the landlord is entitled to retain the bond of $1,400.00. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The landlord’s application having succeeded, I award the filing fee.
The tenant requested suppression but has not been “wholly or substantially” successful (section 95A of the Act).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882064 — Cleanliness at 18 Ford Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882064 — Cleanliness at 18 Ford Street, Pokeno, Pokeno 2402

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions