What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5022329?

The tribunal order states: Logo Ott must pay Baath Rentals Limited As Agent For Anita Bhola & Shyam

How much money was awarded in case 5022329?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022329?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11634559-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5022329?

The tribunal order states: Logo Ott must pay Baath Rentals Limited As Agent For Anita Bhola & Shyam

How much money was awarded in case 5022329?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022329?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022329?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11634559-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Avis Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5022329 — Rent arrears

Order

Logo Ott must pay Baath Rentals Limited As Agent For Anita Bhola & Shyam Sunder Bhola $771.43 immediately, being rent arrears to 20 June 2024.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for a CCTV recorder and outstanding water rates are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord’s property manager and the tenant both attended the hearing which took place by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records.
The landlord says the tenancy ended on 20 June 2024 due to the tenant giving notice to end the tenancy by email that was sent on 23 May 2024.
The tenant says she gave the required 3 weeks’ notice so her tenancy ended on 14 June 2024. The landlord is claiming arrears to 20 June 2024.
The relevant law applicable on this date sets out that a tenant needs to give 28 days’ notice to terminate a periodic tenancy. As applicable at the time, section 51(2B), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides “A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 28 days’ notice”.
I therefore find that the sum claimed of $771.43 is proven as rent arrears/rent in lieu of notice. Water rates
The landlord seeks compensation in relation to one invoice for water rates which they say is unpaid.
As explained at the hearing the difficulty for the landlord is that they did not take a final water reading and the invoice provided is only an estimate of use. The property has been sold.
The landlord therefore cannot prove how much water the tenant is liable for. It would be usual for the Tribunal to be provided with evidence of a final water reading or an actual reading on a final invoice to establish the correct liability. The Tribunal cannot guess the tenant’s liability.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Missing CCTV recorder
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(v) RTA.
The landlord’s current property manager attending the hearing says that a CCTV recorder box was at the premises at the start of the tenancy. She did not manage the property at that time and so cannot give evidence on the point herself.
A recorder box is not listed as a chattel on the tenancy agreement. A very small, very unclear and grainy photograph of what appears to be some sort of monitor in a cupboard was provided to the Tribunal, this was attached to an email from the previous property manager.
The tenant says that when this was first raised as an issue with her she had no idea what people were talking about – She only knew what people were taking about when she saw the photograph, but even then she still had not ever seen what was pictured.
She says she did ask for the TV and CCTV to be removed from the property when she took up the tenancy. She questions why the landlord would have removed the TV as asked, but would leave the CCTV recorder (which is apparently more expensive). She says that the previous property manager says in his email that the cupboard where the recorder was located was in the garage - but the picture that is provided is inside. The tenant has also obtained and provided an email from a former co-tenant (who has since left the property leaving only Ms Ott as the sole tenant) they note that when the tenancy began there were only wires in the cupboard concerned.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that there was a CCTV recorder in the house at the start of the tenancy. It is not recorded in the tenancy agreement and chattels should be listed (section 13A(o) RTA). The photograph that has been provided is insufficient to prove the existence of the recorder in the tenancy. Not only is the photograph wholly unclear it also is unsupported by sufficient information: For example, I do not know who took the photograph and on what day it was taken. There is no ingoing property inspection report. I would wholly expect a chattel such as this to be recorded on a tenancy agreement and pictured in a dated and clear ingoing property inspection report so that both parties have certainty as to their obligations.
Further, even if proven I would not have made an award in this case because (a) the landlord has not bought any replacement and has sold the property so I am not satisfied there will be a loss or the sum sought in the quote would be the landlord’s loss; (b) there was no information about the age or condition of the recorder allowing for suitable depreciation; (c) there was insufficient information about the alleged recorder for me to determine whether the device sought as a replacement would be a like for like replacement if bought; and (d) the quote set out the replacement of not just a recorder but also other items such as CCTV cameras. There was no evidence to show this was necessary as part of a replacement (had the absence of a recorder, and its condition, been proven).
This claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
I decline to award the filing fee given the level of success the landlord has had in this claim.
I also decline to award either party name suppression. Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful and I see no other reason to order suppression (s 95A RTA).

Order

Logo Ott must pay Baath Rentals Limited As Agent For Anita Bhola & Shyam Sunder Bhola $771.43 immediately, being rent arrears to 20 June 2024.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for a CCTV recorder and outstanding water rates are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord’s property manager and the tenant both attended the hearing which took place by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records.
The landlord says the tenancy ended on 20 June 2024 due to the tenant giving notice to end the tenancy by email that was sent on 23 May 2024.
The tenant says she gave the required 3 weeks’ notice so her tenancy ended on 14 June 2024. The landlord is claiming arrears to 20 June 2024.
The relevant law applicable on this date sets out that a tenant needs to give 28 days’ notice to terminate a periodic tenancy. As applicable at the time, section 51(2B), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides “A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 28 days’ notice”.
I therefore find that the sum claimed of $771.43 is proven as rent arrears/rent in lieu of notice. Water rates
The landlord seeks compensation in relation to one invoice for water rates which they say is unpaid.
As explained at the hearing the difficulty for the landlord is that they did not take a final water reading and the invoice provided is only an estimate of use. The property has been sold.
The landlord therefore cannot prove how much water the tenant is liable for. It would be usual for the Tribunal to be provided with evidence of a final water reading or an actual reading on a final invoice to establish the correct liability. The Tribunal cannot guess the tenant’s liability.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Missing CCTV recorder
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(v) RTA.
The landlord’s current property manager attending the hearing says that a CCTV recorder box was at the premises at the start of the tenancy. She did not manage the property at that time and so cannot give evidence on the point herself.
A recorder box is not listed as a chattel on the tenancy agreement. A very small, very unclear and grainy photograph of what appears to be some sort of monitor in a cupboard was provided to the Tribunal, this was attached to an email from the previous property manager.
The tenant says that when this was first raised as an issue with her she had no idea what people were talking about – She only knew what people were taking about when she saw the photograph, but even then she still had not ever seen what was pictured.
She says she did ask for the TV and CCTV to be removed from the property when she took up the tenancy. She questions why the landlord would have removed the TV as asked, but would leave the CCTV recorder (which is apparently more expensive). She says that the previous property manager says in his email that the cupboard where the recorder was located was in the garage - but the picture that is provided is inside. The tenant has also obtained and provided an email from a former co-tenant (who has since left the property leaving only Ms Ott as the sole tenant) they note that when the tenancy began there were only wires in the cupboard concerned.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that there was a CCTV recorder in the house at the start of the tenancy. It is not recorded in the tenancy agreement and chattels should be listed (section 13A(o) RTA). The photograph that has been provided is insufficient to prove the existence of the recorder in the tenancy. Not only is the photograph wholly unclear it also is unsupported by sufficient information: For example, I do not know who took the photograph and on what day it was taken. There is no ingoing property inspection report. I would wholly expect a chattel such as this to be recorded on a tenancy agreement and pictured in a dated and clear ingoing property inspection report so that both parties have certainty as to their obligations.
Further, even if proven I would not have made an award in this case because (a) the landlord has not bought any replacement and has sold the property so I am not satisfied there will be a loss or the sum sought in the quote would be the landlord’s loss; (b) there was no information about the age or condition of the recorder allowing for suitable depreciation; (c) there was insufficient information about the alleged recorder for me to determine whether the device sought as a replacement would be a like for like replacement if bought; and (d) the quote set out the replacement of not just a recorder but also other items such as CCTV cameras. There was no evidence to show this was necessary as part of a replacement (had the absence of a recorder, and its condition, been proven).
This claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
I decline to award the filing fee given the level of success the landlord has had in this claim.
I also decline to award either party name suppression. Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful and I see no other reason to order suppression (s 95A RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5022329 — Rent arrears at 32 Avis Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5022329 — Rent arrears at 32 Avis Avenue, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

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