What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4885662?

The tribunal order states: Peter Evans must pay Ivan Sevic as Agent for Aleksandar Sevic $7,657.30

How much money was awarded in case 4885662?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $667.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,516.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $538.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885662?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885662?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10563179-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4885662?

The tribunal order states: Peter Evans must pay Ivan Sevic as Agent for Aleksandar Sevic $7,657.30

How much money was awarded in case 4885662?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $667.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,516.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $538.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885662?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885662?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10563179-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Shankill Place, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4885662 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885662 — net $7,657.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 June 2024	$8,516.50	claim for rent arrears, water rates arrears and compensation for carpet cleaning and repair. How much is owed for rent?
Water rates	$538.36	Water rates
Carpet repair	$667.00	Carpet repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,657.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,657.30

Order

Peter Evans must pay Ivan Sevic as Agent for Aleksandar Sevic $7,657.30 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,085.00 (5234596-007) to Ivan Sevic as Agent for Aleksandar Sevic immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The Tribunal made an Order on 29 May 2024, terminating the tenancy on 26 June 2024, conditional on the tenant continuing to pay the weekly rent when due until then. The tenant did not pay rent as required and the parties agree that the tenancy ended on 19 June 2024.
This hearing was to determine the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, water rates arrears and compensation for carpet cleaning and repair.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant does not dispute the claims for overdue water rates.
The landlord provided rent records which are not disputed as regards the amount of rent shown as having been paid by the tenant.
What is in dispute is the landlord’s claim for an increased weekly rent of $1,060.00 from 22 April 2024.
The tenant’s evidence is that he has never received notice of that rent increase.
The landlord has provided in evidence a copy of an e-mail sent to the tenant on 25 February 2024, which had the notice of rent increase attached to it. The landlord says that as well as being e-mailed to the tenant the notice was delivered to the tenancy address. The notice does not record the means by which it was served on the tenant.
As the tenant has given evidence, under promise, that he has never received that notice, which is a matter about which he has direct knowledge, the question arises as to whether the notice was validly given.
Section 24 RTA allows a landlord to increase the rent by notice, in the circumstances set out in that provision. Written notice of the increase must be given to the tenant (s.24(1)(a)).
Section 136(1) and (2) sets out the requirements for service of notices. The relevant provisions are that: “(1) Where any notice or other document is required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served on a landlord or a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is given or served in any of the following ways: (a) it may be given to or served on the .... tenant personally...(d) it may be transmitted to the email address or facsimile number given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service.” (2) A notice may be served on a tenant at the premises to which the tenancy agreement relates, if the tenant resides at those premises, as follows: (i) by posting it addressed to the tenant at those premises; or (ii) by delivering it to those premises and either placing it in the mailbox or attaching it to the door of those premises in a prominent position.
The notice was not delivered personally or posted.
I do not find it proved that the notice was delivered to the tenancy address in terms of s.136(2). Had the landlord’s recollection of doing so been corroborated by a note made, at the time, as provided on the notice, as to how it was served, his recollection may have had more weight. Without it there is no basis in the evidence to question the tenant’s direct evidence that no such notice was left at the premises.
The evidence persuades me that a copy of the notice was sent to the tenant by e-mail. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the e-mail address it was sent to was one the parties had used to communicate through.
It was however not the tenant’s personal e-mail address as recorded in these proceedings. It was not an e-mail address recorded on the agreement as an e- mail address that could be used for service of documents. The evidence does not show that it was an e-mail address given by the tenant to the landlord as an e-mail address through which documents could be served on him.
The tenant acknowledges discussions between he and the landlord about a rent increase but is adamant that he did not receive the notice.
My finding is that the evidence: a. does not prove on balance that the tenant received actual notice of the rent increase; and b. does not prove that the steps taken by the landlord to serve the notice were sufficient in terms of s.136(1) and (2).
The arrears are accordingly calculated on the basis of a weekly rent of $900.00 to the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of a 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.
The landlord has had the carpets cleaned at a cost of $448.00.
The tenant had occupied the premises for around 11 years, initially with his wife then, for the last few years, as sole tenant. The agreement allows for 3 cats at the premises. The tenant says that there have been no cats or other pets there for the last few years.
The landlord says it is obvious that after an 11 year occupancy, the carpets should be cleaned before a new tenancy began.
That may be so, but that can only be required at the tenant’s expense, if the tenant has breached his obligation to leave them in reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s evidence is that the upstairs and part of the downstairs carpets were shampoo cleaned when he vacated, with the remainder of the downstairs carpets being vacuumed.
The landlord has provided photographs of some carpet damage but has not provided evidence to show a breach of the tenant’s obligation to leave them reasonably clean. That claim is 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 (or pets) at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord has provided photographs showing that carpet was damaged on the stairs and where the main bedroom leads to the tiled ensuite. The landlord says it was caused by cats or by efforts to deal with cat urine or faeces using bleach.
The tenant accepts that cats caused the damage to the carpet on the stairs but says no bleach was used on the bedroom carpet that was replaced.
The carpet is some 14 years old and beyond its useful life in terms of IRD depreciation guidelines. The landlord says they should not require replacement for another 5 years or so and the tenant agrees that they are generally in good condition. As the evidence indicates that carpets do not require replacement despite their age, I do not take depreciation into account in considering repair costs.
Photographs of the piece of carpet replaced in the bedroom show it to be threadbare and the tenant suggests sun damage as the likely cause.
The landlord has however provided photographs of the underside showing clear evidence of liquid stains though it.
That evidence persuades me on balance, that the damage to that carpet is more than fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that it occurred during the tenant’s occupation of the premises.
That being so, it is for the tenant to provide evidence of a cause for which he is not responsible.
In the absence of such evidence, I find it proved on balance that the tenant should reimburse the landlord for the cost of the replaced carpet as well as for repairing the carpet on the stairs.
Those costs are proved by invoices paid by the landlord.
Because Ivan Sevic as Agent for Aleksandar Sevic has succeeded with the claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885662 — net $7,657.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 June 2024	$8,516.50	claim for rent arrears, water rates arrears and compensation for carpet cleaning and repair. How much is owed for rent?
Water rates	$538.36	Water rates
Carpet repair	$667.00	Carpet repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,657.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,657.30

Order

Peter Evans must pay Ivan Sevic as Agent for Aleksandar Sevic $7,657.30 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,085.00 (5234596-007) to Ivan Sevic as Agent for Aleksandar Sevic immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The Tribunal made an Order on 29 May 2024, terminating the tenancy on 26 June 2024, conditional on the tenant continuing to pay the weekly rent when due until then. The tenant did not pay rent as required and the parties agree that the tenancy ended on 19 June 2024.
This hearing was to determine the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, water rates arrears and compensation for carpet cleaning and repair.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant does not dispute the claims for overdue water rates.
The landlord provided rent records which are not disputed as regards the amount of rent shown as having been paid by the tenant.
What is in dispute is the landlord’s claim for an increased weekly rent of $1,060.00 from 22 April 2024.
The tenant’s evidence is that he has never received notice of that rent increase.
The landlord has provided in evidence a copy of an e-mail sent to the tenant on 25 February 2024, which had the notice of rent increase attached to it. The landlord says that as well as being e-mailed to the tenant the notice was delivered to the tenancy address. The notice does not record the means by which it was served on the tenant.
As the tenant has given evidence, under promise, that he has never received that notice, which is a matter about which he has direct knowledge, the question arises as to whether the notice was validly given.
Section 24 RTA allows a landlord to increase the rent by notice, in the circumstances set out in that provision. Written notice of the increase must be given to the tenant (s.24(1)(a)).
Section 136(1) and (2) sets out the requirements for service of notices. The relevant provisions are that: “(1) Where any notice or other document is required or authorised by this Act to be given to or served on a landlord or a tenant, it shall be sufficient if it is given or served in any of the following ways: (a) it may be given to or served on the .... tenant personally...(d) it may be transmitted to the email address or facsimile number given by the landlord or the tenant as an address for service.” (2) A notice may be served on a tenant at the premises to which the tenancy agreement relates, if the tenant resides at those premises, as follows: (i) by posting it addressed to the tenant at those premises; or (ii) by delivering it to those premises and either placing it in the mailbox or attaching it to the door of those premises in a prominent position.
The notice was not delivered personally or posted.
I do not find it proved that the notice was delivered to the tenancy address in terms of s.136(2). Had the landlord’s recollection of doing so been corroborated by a note made, at the time, as provided on the notice, as to how it was served, his recollection may have had more weight. Without it there is no basis in the evidence to question the tenant’s direct evidence that no such notice was left at the premises.
The evidence persuades me that a copy of the notice was sent to the tenant by e-mail. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the e-mail address it was sent to was one the parties had used to communicate through.
It was however not the tenant’s personal e-mail address as recorded in these proceedings. It was not an e-mail address recorded on the agreement as an e- mail address that could be used for service of documents. The evidence does not show that it was an e-mail address given by the tenant to the landlord as an e-mail address through which documents could be served on him.
The tenant acknowledges discussions between he and the landlord about a rent increase but is adamant that he did not receive the notice.
My finding is that the evidence: a. does not prove on balance that the tenant received actual notice of the rent increase; and b. does not prove that the steps taken by the landlord to serve the notice were sufficient in terms of s.136(1) and (2).
The arrears are accordingly calculated on the basis of a weekly rent of $900.00 to the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of a 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.
The landlord has had the carpets cleaned at a cost of $448.00.
The tenant had occupied the premises for around 11 years, initially with his wife then, for the last few years, as sole tenant. The agreement allows for 3 cats at the premises. The tenant says that there have been no cats or other pets there for the last few years.
The landlord says it is obvious that after an 11 year occupancy, the carpets should be cleaned before a new tenancy began.
That may be so, but that can only be required at the tenant’s expense, if the tenant has breached his obligation to leave them in reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s evidence is that the upstairs and part of the downstairs carpets were shampoo cleaned when he vacated, with the remainder of the downstairs carpets being vacuumed.
The landlord has provided photographs of some carpet damage but has not provided evidence to show a breach of the tenant’s obligation to leave them reasonably clean. That claim is 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 (or pets) at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord has provided photographs showing that carpet was damaged on the stairs and where the main bedroom leads to the tiled ensuite. The landlord says it was caused by cats or by efforts to deal with cat urine or faeces using bleach.
The tenant accepts that cats caused the damage to the carpet on the stairs but says no bleach was used on the bedroom carpet that was replaced.
The carpet is some 14 years old and beyond its useful life in terms of IRD depreciation guidelines. The landlord says they should not require replacement for another 5 years or so and the tenant agrees that they are generally in good condition. As the evidence indicates that carpets do not require replacement despite their age, I do not take depreciation into account in considering repair costs.
Photographs of the piece of carpet replaced in the bedroom show it to be threadbare and the tenant suggests sun damage as the likely cause.
The landlord has however provided photographs of the underside showing clear evidence of liquid stains though it.
That evidence persuades me on balance, that the damage to that carpet is more than fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that it occurred during the tenant’s occupation of the premises.
That being so, it is for the tenant to provide evidence of a cause for which he is not responsible.
In the absence of such evidence, I find it proved on balance that the tenant should reimburse the landlord for the cost of the replaced carpet as well as for repairing the carpet on the stairs.
Those costs are proved by invoices paid by the landlord.
Because Ivan Sevic as Agent for Aleksandar Sevic has succeeded with the claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885662 — Rent arrears at 14 Shankill Place, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885662 — Rent arrears at 14 Shankill Place, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Frequently asked questions