What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4999349?

The tribunal order states: Sunshine Housing Limited As Agent For Ql Homeland Trust must pay Graham

How much money was awarded in case 4999349?

Rent Overpayment: $30.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4999349?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4999349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11186975-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4999349?

The tribunal order states: Sunshine Housing Limited As Agent For Ql Homeland Trust must pay Graham

How much money was awarded in case 4999349?

Rent Overpayment: $30.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4999349?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4999349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11186975-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 4, Unit/Flat 4, 76 Osborne Street, Waltham, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4999349 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4999349 — net $30.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment	$30.00	Rent overpayment
Net award	$30.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$30.00

Order

Sunshine Housing Limited As Agent For Ql Homeland Trust must pay Graham Patrick Ronan $30.00 immediately, being 1 day overpayment of rent.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant was assisted by a non-lawyer representative due to his dyslexia.
The tenant applied for overpayment of rent, refund of the bond, and disputes the amount paid for power during the tenancy.
The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy commencing 7 April 2021. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.
Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The Tribunal has determined this application with these provisions in mind.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence. Overpayment of rent
The tenant says that he overpaid rent by one week at the start of the tenancy and one week at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not provide any corroborating documentation, such as a rent statement, documents from WINZ or bank statements.
The landlord provided a rent summary which recorded the last day of the tenancy as 16 July 2024 and that rent was paid to that day.
The tenant says the last day of the tenancy was 15 July 2024.
The landlord was prepared to accept this as a final day of the tenancy.
I have calculated that rent appears to have been overpaid by 1 day and make an order for this amount, being $30.00.
The balance of the claim for overpayment of rent is dismissed. Refund of the bond
The tenant seeks a refund of the bond.
The RTA provides that a landlord or a tenant may apply in the approved form for payment of a bond, or part of a bond. If the application is made with the agreement of the other party the Bond Centre must pay the bond (or, as the case requires, part of the bond) in accordance with the terms of the application. See section 22 of the RTA.
The bond has been paid to the landlord in full by the Bond Centre following the landlord submitting a Bond Refund form that had been signed by the tenant.
The tenant says he did not agree to the bond being paid to the landlord.
The tenant says the landlord did not meet with him following the end of the tenancy to discuss the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs.
The tenant says the landlord is legally obliged to meet with the tenant, at the tenancy address, at the end of the tenancy for the final room inspection (and that the landlord is required to complete an inspection form), to discuss issues the landlord wants remedied and the “bond sign off”. I do not consider the RTA places this specific obligation on the landlord.
The tenant says when he signed the Bond Refund form it was incomplete and he thought the landlord was going to have the bond refunded to him.
I consider it unlikely the Bond refund form was incomplete and I consider it likely the tenant was aware that the landlord was seeking payment of the bond for the following reasons: a. The Bond refund form had been typed to record the bond is to be paid the landlord. I consider it unlikely the landlord could have typed this information into the form after the tenant signed the form. b. The landlord’s submitted a written statement saying: On July 19, 2024, at 2:27 PM, I emailed Graham with the details of the deductions from his bond, attaching all supporting documents and a bond refund form. However, I did not receive a response. I then sent him a text message asking for his current address so I could send the bond refund form for his signature. Upon arriving at his current property, I reiterated the details of the deductions from his bond. Graham agreed on-site and signed the bond refund form. c. The landlord provided the email he had sent to the tenant on 19 July 2024 outlining the claims in respect of the bond. d. On 24 July 2024 the landlord went to the time and expense of travelling to the tenant’s new address to have the Bond refund form signed. I consider it most likely the tenant knew the landlord was meeting with him to have the bond refunded to the landlord.
I therefore do not consider there are grounds, when the parties have previously agreed that the landlord is to be paid the bond by the Bond Centre, for the Tribunal to order that the tenant is refunded the bond. Power
The tenant raised his concern that the power had been incorrectly invoiced.
I understand the issue is that the bond was retained to pay the tenant’s power accounts from the duration of the tenancy, however for the reasons stated above, I dismiss this claim, as the tenant has previously agreed to pay the power from the bond.
The tenant did not specify what order was sought in relation to this claim or provide any corroborating evidence in respect of this claim. Suppression
Neither party sought name suppression Filing fee
Because the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4999349 — net $30.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment	$30.00	Rent overpayment
Net award	$30.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$30.00

Order

Sunshine Housing Limited As Agent For Ql Homeland Trust must pay Graham Patrick Ronan $30.00 immediately, being 1 day overpayment of rent.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant was assisted by a non-lawyer representative due to his dyslexia.
The tenant applied for overpayment of rent, refund of the bond, and disputes the amount paid for power during the tenancy.
The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy commencing 7 April 2021. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.
Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The Tribunal has determined this application with these provisions in mind.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence. Overpayment of rent
The tenant says that he overpaid rent by one week at the start of the tenancy and one week at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not provide any corroborating documentation, such as a rent statement, documents from WINZ or bank statements.
The landlord provided a rent summary which recorded the last day of the tenancy as 16 July 2024 and that rent was paid to that day.
The tenant says the last day of the tenancy was 15 July 2024.
The landlord was prepared to accept this as a final day of the tenancy.
I have calculated that rent appears to have been overpaid by 1 day and make an order for this amount, being $30.00.
The balance of the claim for overpayment of rent is dismissed. Refund of the bond
The tenant seeks a refund of the bond.
The RTA provides that a landlord or a tenant may apply in the approved form for payment of a bond, or part of a bond. If the application is made with the agreement of the other party the Bond Centre must pay the bond (or, as the case requires, part of the bond) in accordance with the terms of the application. See section 22 of the RTA.
The bond has been paid to the landlord in full by the Bond Centre following the landlord submitting a Bond Refund form that had been signed by the tenant.
The tenant says he did not agree to the bond being paid to the landlord.
The tenant says the landlord did not meet with him following the end of the tenancy to discuss the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs.
The tenant says the landlord is legally obliged to meet with the tenant, at the tenancy address, at the end of the tenancy for the final room inspection (and that the landlord is required to complete an inspection form), to discuss issues the landlord wants remedied and the “bond sign off”. I do not consider the RTA places this specific obligation on the landlord.
The tenant says when he signed the Bond Refund form it was incomplete and he thought the landlord was going to have the bond refunded to him.
I consider it unlikely the Bond refund form was incomplete and I consider it likely the tenant was aware that the landlord was seeking payment of the bond for the following reasons: a. The Bond refund form had been typed to record the bond is to be paid the landlord. I consider it unlikely the landlord could have typed this information into the form after the tenant signed the form. b. The landlord’s submitted a written statement saying: On July 19, 2024, at 2:27 PM, I emailed Graham with the details of the deductions from his bond, attaching all supporting documents and a bond refund form. However, I did not receive a response. I then sent him a text message asking for his current address so I could send the bond refund form for his signature. Upon arriving at his current property, I reiterated the details of the deductions from his bond. Graham agreed on-site and signed the bond refund form. c. The landlord provided the email he had sent to the tenant on 19 July 2024 outlining the claims in respect of the bond. d. On 24 July 2024 the landlord went to the time and expense of travelling to the tenant’s new address to have the Bond refund form signed. I consider it most likely the tenant knew the landlord was meeting with him to have the bond refunded to the landlord.
I therefore do not consider there are grounds, when the parties have previously agreed that the landlord is to be paid the bond by the Bond Centre, for the Tribunal to order that the tenant is refunded the bond. Power
The tenant raised his concern that the power had been incorrectly invoiced.
I understand the issue is that the bond was retained to pay the tenant’s power accounts from the duration of the tenancy, however for the reasons stated above, I dismiss this claim, as the tenant has previously agreed to pay the power from the bond.
The tenant did not specify what order was sought in relation to this claim or provide any corroborating evidence in respect of this claim. Suppression
Neither party sought name suppression Filing fee
Because the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4999349 — Tenancy dispute at Room 4, Unit/Flat 4, 76 Osborne Street, Waltham,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4999349 — Tenancy dispute at Room 4, Unit/Flat 4, 76 Osborne Street, Waltham,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions