What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048548?

The tribunal order states: Michelle Pyne, also known as Michelle McGinty must pay Loren Hamilton,

How much money was awarded in case 5048548?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,485.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048548?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11312621-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048548?

The tribunal order states: Michelle Pyne, also known as Michelle McGinty must pay Loren Hamilton,

How much money was awarded in case 5048548?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,485.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048548?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11312621-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Lockhart Avenue, Milson, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5048548 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048548 — net $3,152.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,485.71	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,152.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,152.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048548 — net $3,152.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,485.71	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,152.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,152.71

Order

Michelle Pyne, also known as Michelle McGinty must pay Loren Hamilton, Jason Anthony Hamilton and Darren Reginald Trevor Hamilton $3,152.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,360.00 to Loren Hamilton, Jason Anthony Hamilton and Darren Reginald Trevor Hamilton immediately.
All other claims by either party are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlords being represented by Loren and Jason Hamilton.
The landlord applied for termination, rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. In fact, the tenancy terminated on 6 January 2025 and so there was no need to make a termination order.
At the hearing the landlord also raised three issues following the end of the tenancy and these were also dealt with.
The tenant’s application was for $3,000 for: a. Reimbursement of a Homeads fee of $437.00 b. Inadequate notice of a change of landlord c. Failure to maintain d. Non-compliance with the Healthy Homes Standard e. Miscommunication about the rent arrears f. Being blamed for shower damage.
The onus is on the applicants to prove their respective claims. The balance of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Background
The initial tenancy between the tenant and Brian and Joy Hamilton began on 1 April 2017. When Joy Hamilton died in 2022, her son, Jason, and daughter-in- law, Loren, took over management of the tenancy. They had previously been involved in managing the tenancy.
According to the bond details, the names of Loren and Jason were added to the landlord’s name. Darren and Joy’s were not removed.
During the tenancy there were some late payments with rent. The landlords issued notices to remedy.
The parties attended a mediation in November 2024, at which time it was agreed that the landlords would undertake moisture testing of the premises. Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 6 January 2025. The weekly rent was $500.00. The landlord provided rent records which show the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $4,485.71. The tenant agreed that she owed rent but disputed the amount. When asked what amount she thought she owed, she said that she had worked it out at about $2,500. She had no documentation to support this calculation. She said that was the amount she had calculated in November. She agreed that she had missed some payments since then.
The rent summary shows that on 21 November the rent arrears were $2,350, and by the end of November, the sum of $2,850 was owing. The tenant made two further payments of $400 during December. By 6 January 2025 she owed $4,485.71. The sums on the rent summary are consistent with the tenant’s calculations of what she owed in November.
It was not until these Tribunal proceedings that the landlord collated a full rent summary in the form recommended on the Tenancy Services website. They went through all bank accounts, including their parents’ to find all payments made. The rent summary starts at 14 July 2023 with rent arrears of $1,360. The tenant disputes that she owed these arrears.
The landlords say that it was agreed that the tenant would reduce those arrears at $50.00.
Given that the tenancy continued from 2017 with two landlords’ names added, the rent summary should have started at 2017. The need for this is highlighted by the tenant’s dispute that she was in arrears in July 2023.
However, the rent summary shows from 14 July 2023 the tenant made regular payments of $50.00 and one of $200. By 22 November 2023, the debt had reduced to $560. Because she missed a payment for the week 24 November to 30 November, 1 the arrears increased again to $1060. The tenant continued to make single payments of $50 in addition to other payments of varying amounts. By 6 March 2024 the debt was reduced to $550. Based on this evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant was aware of the arrears in July 2023 and had agreed to reduce them.
On 5 September 2024 the tenant made a lump sum payment of $1,850, believing this would clear the debt, which is again evidence that she was aware of the rent arrears. According to the summary, there remained a balance of $500.
The landlord said that this occurred because by the time the payment was made, a further rent payment was due.
The tenant is upset because she had arranged for WINZ to clear the payment, and it should have been for the correct amount. This is discussed below. 1 I note that there is an error in some dates in the rent summary. At line 31 there is an entry showing that on 17 November 2023, rent was owed for the period 17 November to 2 January 1900. That is clearly an entry error. The correct date should have been 23 November. The next entry shows rent due from 24 November to 23 November, when it should be 30 November and the next one shows 1 December to 30 November, when it should be 8 December. However, despite the date error, the calculation is correct. From 17 November to 8 December the tenant owed 3 weeks’ rent, being $1500, and that is the amount debited.
Given the tenant agreed that in November the rent arrears were about $2,500, that is consistent with the rent summary, and that she has missed payments since then, I am satisfied that the amount claimed by the landlord is established.
The amount ordered is proved.

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

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 tenancy agreement required the tenant to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy, but the landlord acknowledged that such a clause is not enforceable. There was no evidence that the carpets required cleaning because of soiling or odour.

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 at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord said that the handle on the dishwasher is broken and they have obtained a quote of $60 to replace it.
The dishwasher is 9 years old.
I find that a repair of this nature is simply maintenance of an appliance due to fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed.
The landlord also said that the rubber on the ranch slider had gone and there was a gap in the door. They did not seek compensation but said she should have let them know about it.
The tenant said it was like that when she moved in.
The onus is on the landlord to prove that the tenant caused the damage. The landlord had no photos to show the state of the property at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has not proved on the balance of probability that the damage occurred during the tenancy or that the tenant is responsible for the damage. Tenants’ claims
The tenant wants a refund of a Homeads fee of $437.00 that she paid at the start of the tenancy in April 2017. The prohibition on letting fees as found in section 17A of the Act was not in force at that time.
Moreover, it is a defence to a claim for money if the date on which the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based. The tenant’s application was filed on or about 22 November 2024. Her claim is therefore filed out of time. Her claim is dismissed.
The tenant also claims that she had inadequate notice of a change of landlord/agent. As noted above, in 2022 Jason, and daughter-in-law, Loren, took over management of the tenancy. They had previously been involved in managing the tenancy. The tenant has not elaborated on how her rights were breached or the impact on her. There is no suggestion that she was unable to contact the landlord when needed. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant complains about communication about her rent arrears. She is upset because she had arranged for WINZ to clear the payment, and it should have been for the correct amount. As noted above, the further debt arose because of the timing of the payment by WINZ.
The clearance of the payment by WINZ simply means that the tenant has a debt to a different party. It cleared a debt that would have been a ground for termination because she was more than 21 days in arrears. The tenant’s grievance about this has no merit. The debt was the same, whether to the landlord or to WINZ. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by: a. not clearing the gutters b. not maintaining the premises, leading to a build-up of mould c. not complying with the Healthy Homes Standards in relation to moisture ingress.
The tenant seeks compensation.
The tenant says that she cleared the gutters during the tenancy. She found out afterwards that gutters are the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord said that they also attended to this during the tenancy.
The tenant did not ask the landlord to clear the gutters at any time. The landlords should have done so and possibly did. There is no evidence of any harm or cost to the tenant. There are insufficient landlord grounds to order compensation.
The tenant is upset that she was blamed for shower damage. There is no claim from the landlord’s alleging that she has damaged the shower. Copies of text communication from April 2021 show the landlord communicating with the tenant about a plumber visiting to look at the shower. There is no evidence that the landlord, either rightly or wrongly, held the tenant responsible for the shower.
The tenant said that there was mould in the property and it affected her health. She provided no independent evidence of her health issues, testing of the nature of the mould, and any link between the mould and her health.
The tenant provided an unsigned letter from her daughter saying that she recalls her mother complaining to Mrs Joy Hamilton about the mould. The tenant provided no other evidence to corroborate her claims that she told Joy Hamilton about it. Loren Hamilton said that she had been through all emails and texts and can find no reference to it.
Loren Hamilton agrees that she was told about it during 2024. She was unsure of the date. The tenant did not know the date. She arranged for moisture tests to be done and provided evidence in the form of photographs of the testing device with a green light.
The presence of mould in a property may be evidence of a defect in the property, but that is not the only reason for mould. It is not automatically evidence of a breach of a responsibility of either the tenant or the landlord.
The onus is on the tenant to establish that the landlord breached a responsibility under the Act, that there was mould as a result of a failure on the landlord’s part and that it has caused harm. She has not done so.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). She considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS for private rentals are: a. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or b. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. c. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025.
Because this tenancy commenced in 2017, paragraph c) applies. Therefore the HHS did not apply to the present tenancy. I add that even if they had, the presence of mould is not evidence of a breach of that standard. The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.
The tenant has not established this claim.
Because Loren Hamilton, Jason Anthony Hamilton, Darren Reginald Trevor Hamilton has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048548 — Rent arrears at 26 Lockhart Avenue, Milson, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048548 — Rent arrears at 26 Lockhart Avenue, Milson, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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