What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892092?

The tribunal order states: Riki Jean Carter must pay Krishna Rani Saha $133.50 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4892092?

Property Damage: $840.65 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,092.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892092?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10809141-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4892092?

The tribunal order states: Riki Jean Carter must pay Krishna Rani Saha $133.50 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4892092?

Property Damage: $840.65 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,092.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4892092?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4892092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10809141-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

114 Ruskin Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4892092 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892092 — net $133.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 May 2024	$1,092.85	Rent arrears to 5 May 2024
Carpet replacement	$840.65	Carpet replacement
Net award	$133.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$133.50

Only the landlord attended the hearing on 9 September.

There was a hearing on 22 July which both parties attended, and this order should be read with the Tribunal’s order made on 26 July following that hearing.

The most important thing to note from the previous hearing is that the tenant had a tenancy, on the face of it, of the entire premises consisting of a four- bedroom house and a sleepout. Her daughter had an identical tenancy agreement and they each had the use of two bedrooms in the house.

After the daughter left the premises in December, the landlord moved other people into the premises to share them with the tenant. Others also occupied the sleepout from time to time and used the house’s facilities.

The landlord claims rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has received the bond in the sum of $1,800. The landlord has allocated claims against the bond and therefore they were not included in this application. As I pointed out in my previous order, I must determine all the landlord’s claims, not just those made in this application. Rent

It is unclear when the tenancy ended. The landlord claimed rent arears to 20 May but amended that to 5 May. She said that many people used the premises as their bail address. One such person started paying rent on 6 May although they did not move into the premises until later. The landlord could not say when. Because rent was paid from 6 May, she claims rent from the tenant to 5 May.

The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount of rent owing to 5 May. Without evidence from the tenant that the landlord misled her regarding whether she could terminate the tenancy, I must accept the landlord’s evidence and award the arrears as (now) claimed. Carpet

I accept that the tenant removed carpet from the lounge and one of the bedrooms in the premises. Messages from the tenant during the tenancy support that. The tenant told the landlord that she intended replacing the carpet, but that did not happen.

The landlord claimed $2,599 as the cost of replacing the carpet but now claims $840.65 being the cost of buying and fitting second-hand carpet. I regard as that reasonable and so I have awarded it. Other Claims

The landlord paid the tenant money during the tenancy amounting to $680. She described the payments as refunded bond. I note that the bond remained at the Bond Centre during the tenancy.

The tenant said at the previous hearing that the payments were due to her as rent received by the landlord over and above than the rent that her daughter was paying, after the daughter had left the premises.

Whatever the truth is, I find that the claim for repayment of the money is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These were payments made to the tenant for living expenses. They were not related to the tenancy. They were personal between the landlord and the tenant and if the tenant has liability to repay them, it is not a liability that arises under the tenancy or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The landlord’s other claims are for damage to the premises, but the landlord was unable to provide evidence that they were the tenant’s responsibility. Due to the way that the landlord has operated, they could have been caused by the tenant’s guests, the tenant’s daughter, her guests, other tenants or strangers who came and went from the premises.

For that reason, the claims must be dismissed. The landlord has chosen to allow multiple people to occupy the premises under separate tenancy agreements and there has been a churn of occupiers during the term of the tenant’s tenancy. That has been financially advantageous to the landlord in terms of rent, but the landlord must now accept the disadvantage of that arrangement when it comes to claims that concern the condition of the premises when the tenancies have come to an end.

There were other problems with the landlord’s claims. Evidence of the some of the costs claimed was lacking or was unsatisfactory. There is no need to consider those issues because the landlord has been unable to prove that the tenant is responsible for the costs in the first place.

The landlord also sought to introduce a claim for exemplary damage for removing smoke alarms. That claim must fail for the same reason as the other claims have failed.

The landlord has had very limited success and so I have not awarded the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4892092 — net $133.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 May 2024	$1,092.85	Rent arrears to 5 May 2024
Carpet replacement	$840.65	Carpet replacement
Net award	$133.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$133.50

Only the landlord attended the hearing on 9 September.

There was a hearing on 22 July which both parties attended, and this order should be read with the Tribunal’s order made on 26 July following that hearing.

The landlord claims rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord paid the tenant money during the tenancy amounting to $680. She described the payments as refunded bond. I note that the bond remained at the Bond Centre during the tenancy.

The landlord also sought to introduce a claim for exemplary damage for removing smoke alarms. That claim must fail for the same reason as the other claims have failed.

The landlord has had very limited success and so I have not awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892092 — Rent arrears at 114 Ruskin Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4892092 — Rent arrears at 114 Ruskin Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

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