What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4969760?

The tribunal order states: Rehana Abdul must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4969760?

Cleaning: $28.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,932.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4969760?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4969760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11217570-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4969760?

The tribunal order states: Rehana Abdul must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4969760?

Cleaning: $28.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,932.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4969760?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4969760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11217570-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21A Hill Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4969760 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4969760 — net $121.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08 July 2024	$1,932.85	Rent arrears to 08 July 2024
Cleaning	$28.75	Cleaning
Net award	$121.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$121.60

Order

Rehana Abdul must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agent For Mandeep Kaur $121.60 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (5818384-004) to Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agent For Mandeep Kaur immediately.
The landlord’s application for rubbish removal, replacement of locks, damage to the premises and the filing fee are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Khan of Pro Edge Property Management Limited (“Pro Edge”) attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why the tenant would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden of proof:
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 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 08 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is proved.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord is claiming: $300 plus GST for cleaning; $210 plus GST for cleaning of the fridge and disposal of rubbish; and $150 plus GST for lock replacement.
Prior to the hearing, the landlord provided an invoice from Scope Works NZ Limited (“Scope Works”) dated 26 July 2024 for this work and repairs to the premises. Scope Works and Pro Edge share the same directors, and the same registered office.
I have some concerns about this invoice. Despite being a GST invoice, the document from Scope Works was confusing as it appeared to be a cost estimate. In two locations it refers to the work charged for and states: “[t]his task requires the involvement of two individuals and is estimated to take approximately ...” The invoice from Scope Works also refers to “carpet vacuum”. However, none of the photographs of the premises provided by the landlord show any carpet in the premises. Ms Khan was unable to explain these discrepancies.
Given the relationship between the two companies and my concerns about the invoice, I issued directions requesting further documentary evidence from the landlord to support it claims that the work was performed, the costs incurred were reasonable and the invoice has been paid.
Following the hearing, Ms Kahn: a. Confirmed that the two companies referred to in paragraph 10 above do share the same directors and the same registered office. Ms Kahn said that the companies operate separately; b. Advised that the invoice form Scope Works had not been paid in full by the landlord. She said Pro Edge had reached an arrangement with the landlord to pay $200 fortnightly towards the invoice and that $1200 had been paid; c. Provided a transaction summary from ASB showing that 6 x $200 payments with the address of the premises as the reference had been made. However, the statement does not record the name of the bank account or the person / entity making the payments; d. Provided a further invoice for the work from S&G New Era Enterprise Limited to Scope Works for $1,694 (including GST). This included the work contained in the first invoice. This invoice was dated 27 August 2024.
The landlord has provided an exit inspection report dated 08 July 2024 showing the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The photographs in the exit inspection report do not show that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Following the hearing, the landlord provided some photographs as proof that the oven, the fridge and some of the rooms had been cleaned. However, the only photograph provided showing the tenant did not leave the area reasonably clean and tidy was one taken of a window and its frame. There were no photographs proving that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish.
Apart from the one window referred to above, I am not satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or that that the tenant failed to remove rubbish. I consider it would take no more than half an hour to clean the window and frame. I award $28.75 (including GST) for cleaning of the window. (In calculating this sum, I have assumed an hourly rate of $50 plus GST). The claims for cleaning of the fridge and removal of rubbish are dismissed.
In the directions I issued following the hearing, I requested invoices for any materials included in the Scope Works invoice. The landlord has claimed for lock replacement of the main door. The charge is said to include labour and materials. As set out above, I have been provided with an invoice for the work from another contractor. However, I have not been provided with an invoice for the materials (i.e. the locks) and I am not satisfied that this work was performed. The claims for lock replacement is not proved and is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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(3)(b) 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 for whom they are responsible.
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 landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to windows; missing toilet roll holder; hole in the wall; and cracks in the doors. The landlord is seeking $1,560.00 plus GST for these claims.
Some of the exit photographs show the damage claimed to the property. However, the landlord has not provided evidence showing the damage occurred during the tenancy. At the hearing, Ms Khan was asked for an ingoing inspection report and/or photographs showing the state of the premises immediately before the start of the tenancy. Ms Khan was unable to provide this evidence. As set out in paragraph 17 above, it is for the landlord to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the damage claimed was caused during the tenancy. The claim for damages to the premises is dismissed. Filing fee:
Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agent For Mandeep Kaur has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claim. The claim for the filing fee is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4969760 — net $121.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08 July 2024	$1,932.85	Rent arrears to 08 July 2024
Cleaning	$28.75	Cleaning
Net award	$121.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$121.60

Order

Rehana Abdul must pay Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agent For Mandeep Kaur $121.60 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (5818384-004) to Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agent For Mandeep Kaur immediately.
The landlord’s application for rubbish removal, replacement of locks, damage to the premises and the filing fee are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Khan of Pro Edge Property Management Limited (“Pro Edge”) attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why the tenant would not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden of proof:
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 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 08 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is proved.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord is claiming: $300 plus GST for cleaning; $210 plus GST for cleaning of the fridge and disposal of rubbish; and $150 plus GST for lock replacement.
Prior to the hearing, the landlord provided an invoice from Scope Works NZ Limited (“Scope Works”) dated 26 July 2024 for this work and repairs to the premises. Scope Works and Pro Edge share the same directors, and the same registered office.
I have some concerns about this invoice. Despite being a GST invoice, the document from Scope Works was confusing as it appeared to be a cost estimate. In two locations it refers to the work charged for and states: “[t]his task requires the involvement of two individuals and is estimated to take approximately ...” The invoice from Scope Works also refers to “carpet vacuum”. However, none of the photographs of the premises provided by the landlord show any carpet in the premises. Ms Khan was unable to explain these discrepancies.
Given the relationship between the two companies and my concerns about the invoice, I issued directions requesting further documentary evidence from the landlord to support it claims that the work was performed, the costs incurred were reasonable and the invoice has been paid.
Following the hearing, Ms Kahn: a. Confirmed that the two companies referred to in paragraph 10 above do share the same directors and the same registered office. Ms Kahn said that the companies operate separately; b. Advised that the invoice form Scope Works had not been paid in full by the landlord. She said Pro Edge had reached an arrangement with the landlord to pay $200 fortnightly towards the invoice and that $1200 had been paid; c. Provided a transaction summary from ASB showing that 6 x $200 payments with the address of the premises as the reference had been made. However, the statement does not record the name of the bank account or the person / entity making the payments; d. Provided a further invoice for the work from S&G New Era Enterprise Limited to Scope Works for $1,694 (including GST). This included the work contained in the first invoice. This invoice was dated 27 August 2024.
The landlord has provided an exit inspection report dated 08 July 2024 showing the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The photographs in the exit inspection report do not show that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Following the hearing, the landlord provided some photographs as proof that the oven, the fridge and some of the rooms had been cleaned. However, the only photograph provided showing the tenant did not leave the area reasonably clean and tidy was one taken of a window and its frame. There were no photographs proving that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish.
Apart from the one window referred to above, I am not satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or that that the tenant failed to remove rubbish. I consider it would take no more than half an hour to clean the window and frame. I award $28.75 (including GST) for cleaning of the window. (In calculating this sum, I have assumed an hourly rate of $50 plus GST). The claims for cleaning of the fridge and removal of rubbish are dismissed.
In the directions I issued following the hearing, I requested invoices for any materials included in the Scope Works invoice. The landlord has claimed for lock replacement of the main door. The charge is said to include labour and materials. As set out above, I have been provided with an invoice for the work from another contractor. However, I have not been provided with an invoice for the materials (i.e. the locks) and I am not satisfied that this work was performed. The claims for lock replacement is not proved and is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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(3)(b) 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 for whom they are responsible.
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 landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to windows; missing toilet roll holder; hole in the wall; and cracks in the doors. The landlord is seeking $1,560.00 plus GST for these claims.
Some of the exit photographs show the damage claimed to the property. However, the landlord has not provided evidence showing the damage occurred during the tenancy. At the hearing, Ms Khan was asked for an ingoing inspection report and/or photographs showing the state of the premises immediately before the start of the tenancy. Ms Khan was unable to provide this evidence. As set out in paragraph 17 above, it is for the landlord to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the damage claimed was caused during the tenancy. The claim for damages to the premises is dismissed. Filing fee:
Pro Edge Property Management Limited As Agent For Mandeep Kaur has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claim. The claim for the filing fee is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4969760 — Rent arrears at 21A Hill Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4969760 — Rent arrears at 21A Hill Road, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions