What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5067097?

The tribunal order states: Dean Morgan to pay Shawn Ma and Xiaoyu Bi $339.96 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5067097?

Rent Arrears: $307.02 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $32.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067097?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067097?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11410057-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5067097?

The tribunal order states: Dean Morgan to pay Shawn Ma and Xiaoyu Bi $339.96 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5067097?

Rent Arrears: $307.02 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $32.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5067097?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5067097?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11410057-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Parkview Drive, Gulf Harbour, Whangaparaoa 0930 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5067097 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067097 — net $339.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$307.02	Rent arrears
Water rates	$32.94	Water rates
Net award	$339.96
Bond	$2,190.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$339.96

Order

Dean Morgan to pay Shawn Ma and Xiaoyu Bi $339.96 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,190.00 (6180951-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Shawn Ma and Xiaoyu Bi: $339.96 Dean Morgan: $1,850.04
The claims in respect of rent and water arrears are allowed.
The landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 8 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant also accepts the amounts claimed meaning that an order for these two claims can be made by consent.
The amounts claimed are allowed.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not remove a green garden bag at the end of the tenancy. He says that they have received a quote to have the green waste bag removed. The bag is yet to be removed.
The landlord has not provided any evidence in support of this claim. They did not provide any photographic evidence or an expense claim in the form of a paid receipt.
The landlord also claims that they had to clean the carpet. He received a quote for $633.25 to have this carried out.
The tenant says that they cleaned the carpet prior to leaving.
The landlord has failed to provide any evidence in support of this claim. At the very least I would have expected an invoice from a professional carpet cleaner confirming the amount has been paid. In the case of pet smell, I would also expect evidence from a professional carpet cleaner confirming that the carpet required further cleaning.
The landlord has not provided any evidence in support of these claims. There are no entry photographs taken at the start of the tenancy. There are no exit photographs taken at the conclusion of the tenancy in November 2024.
The claims for rubbish removal and carpet cleaning are dismissed.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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 they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. Exemplary damages:
The landlord is also seeking exemplary damages for various work undertaken on the premises by the tenant without consent. The landlord says that the tenant has damaged parts of the property as a result.
The tenant does not accept these claims.
The landlord has failed to provide any evidence in support of these claims for exemplary damages. Analysis:
The landlord has filed a number of claims against the tenant.
The applicant is required to establish their claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish his respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that he must establish that what he is claiming is more likely than not.
The landlord, in this particular case also carries the burden of proof. This means that he must provide adequate evidence in support of his claims. 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.
He has not done this. Put simply, there is no evidential basis for these claims.
During the hearing I intimated the possibility of adjourning the matter to a face- to-face hearing to allow the landlord the opportunity to provide the required evidence. Having reflected, this approach would be unfair on the tenant. The tenant should not be put to the inconvenience of a further hearing simply because the landlord failed to provide evidence prior to the hearing as required.
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.
For these reasons the landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord’s application has not been wholly or substantially successful and therefore is not entitled to name suppression.
For the same reasons I also do not reimburse the filing fee as the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5067097 — net $339.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$307.02	Rent arrears
Water rates	$32.94	Water rates
Net award	$339.96
Bond	$2,190.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$339.96

Order

Dean Morgan to pay Shawn Ma and Xiaoyu Bi $339.96 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,190.00 (6180951-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Shawn Ma and Xiaoyu Bi: $339.96 Dean Morgan: $1,850.04
The claims in respect of rent and water arrears are allowed.
The landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 8 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant also accepts the amounts claimed meaning that an order for these two claims can be made by consent.
The amounts claimed are allowed.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not remove a green garden bag at the end of the tenancy. He says that they have received a quote to have the green waste bag removed. The bag is yet to be removed.
The landlord has not provided any evidence in support of this claim. They did not provide any photographic evidence or an expense claim in the form of a paid receipt.
The landlord also claims that they had to clean the carpet. He received a quote for $633.25 to have this carried out.
The tenant says that they cleaned the carpet prior to leaving.
The landlord has failed to provide any evidence in support of this claim. At the very least I would have expected an invoice from a professional carpet cleaner confirming the amount has been paid. In the case of pet smell, I would also expect evidence from a professional carpet cleaner confirming that the carpet required further cleaning.
The landlord has not provided any evidence in support of these claims. There are no entry photographs taken at the start of the tenancy. There are no exit photographs taken at the conclusion of the tenancy in November 2024.
The claims for rubbish removal and carpet cleaning are dismissed.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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 they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. Exemplary damages:
The landlord is also seeking exemplary damages for various work undertaken on the premises by the tenant without consent. The landlord says that the tenant has damaged parts of the property as a result.
The tenant does not accept these claims.
The landlord has failed to provide any evidence in support of these claims for exemplary damages. Analysis:
The landlord has filed a number of claims against the tenant.
The applicant is required to establish their claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish his respective claims on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that he must establish that what he is claiming is more likely than not.
The landlord, in this particular case also carries the burden of proof. This means that he must provide adequate evidence in support of his claims. 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.
He has not done this. Put simply, there is no evidential basis for these claims.
During the hearing I intimated the possibility of adjourning the matter to a face- to-face hearing to allow the landlord the opportunity to provide the required evidence. Having reflected, this approach would be unfair on the tenant. The tenant should not be put to the inconvenience of a further hearing simply because the landlord failed to provide evidence prior to the hearing as required.
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.
For these reasons the landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord’s application has not been wholly or substantially successful and therefore is not entitled to name suppression.
For the same reasons I also do not reimburse the filing fee as the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067097 — Rent arrears at 1 Parkview Drive, Gulf Harbour, Whangaparaoa 0930

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5067097 — Rent arrears at 1 Parkview Drive, Gulf Harbour, Whangaparaoa 0930

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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