Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5108813 — Rent arrears at Room C and D, 65 Ruskin Street, Addington, Christchurch
Decided 16 May 2025 · Published 16 May 2025 · Application 5108813
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
Order
- Tina Katarina Rose Mahanga must pay Krishna Rani Saha $683.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Ms Saha attended the hearing. The tenant, Ms Mahanga, did not attend. Background
- Ms Mahanga had a tenancy of a studio/sleepout at the premises commencing on 17 February 2023. Rent was agreed at $500.00 per week and a bond of $2,000.00. On 22 August 2023, Ms Mahanga and Ms Saha entered another tenancy agreement for two bedrooms inside the main house at the premises with shared use of the facilities with other tenants of Ms Saha. Rent was agreed at $600.00 per week.
- On 17 August 2024 Ms Saha received the sum of $1,145.00 from the bond for repairs to the sleepout, gas, and rubbish removal. She said that Ms Mahanga agreed to these costs. The remaining bond of $855.00 remained at the Bond Centre. Then, on or about 14 September 2023, Ms Saha received the sum of $820.00 from the remaining bond with the balance ($34.50) to be paid to Ms Mahanga. Ms Saha said that this was to repay a personal loan of $800.00 she had made to Ms Mahanga in August 2023.
- Ms Mahanga’s tenancy ended on 5 December 2024 after Ms Saha gave her 90 days’ notice. The tenancy ended because the premises were to be demolished. Ms Saha said that they were demolished on 14 December 2024.
- Ms Saha claims rent of $1,976.00 to 5 December. She also claims $530.00 to remove and dispose of rubbish and goods she claims belonged to Ms Mahanga.
How much is owed for rent?
- Ms Saha provided a rent summary in support of her claim for rent. However, some of the rent claimed is for the tenancy of the sleepout, not for this tenancy. The rent owing for this tenancy has been established by the rent summary and Ms Saha’s evidence.
- I have deducted the bond of $820.00 received by Ms Saha after this tenancy commenced. There is no evidence to support Ms Saha’s claim that Ms Mahanga agreed to payment of the $820.00 to pay a personal loan of $800.00. Moreover, the bond is for the tenancy and should only be used for matters arising out of the tenancy, not for any personal obligations the parties may have between them. I therefore consider it appropriate that the bond of $820.00 be deducted from the rent claimed.
Has Ms Saha established her claim for disposal of rubbish/goods?
- Ms Saha claims that Ms Mahanga asked her to leave belongings she had left at the premises at the end of the tenancy outside the premises for her, or someone on her behalf, to collect. Ms Saha said that she moved all the belongings outside on 5 or 6 December 2024. She said that no one came to collect the belongings and demolition work was due to start on 11 December so she arranged for ‘Rob’s Rubbish Removals’ to remove the items. She said that some of the items were “really good quality” and some had value but she did not have time to store them or sell them (as required by section 62A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)) because of the impending demolition.
- Ms Saha claims the sum of $480.00 for the work based on an invoice dated 5 December 2024. The photographs provided by Ms Saha in support of the claim show an enormous pile of rubbish/possessions including mattresses, bedding, large cupboards, bar stools, what appears to be a lounge suite, bedroom furniture, and more.
- Ms Saha also claims the sum of $50.00 she said she paid to “Chris” who she said lives up the road. It is not clear what the payment to Chris is for. At the first hearing of the application (on 14 March) she said the payment was for him helping her to load the goods onto a trailer. However, at the hearing on 12 May she said that it was for helping her carry the goods outside.
- I dismiss the claim for rubbish/goods removal. Apart from my concerns that Ms Saha has disposed of goods that she said has value in breach of her obligations under section 62A of the Act, I am not satisfied that she has established what, if any, of the rubbish/goods belonged to Ms Mahanga.
- The premises were provided by Ms Saha fully furnished, including beds and furniture in the bedrooms. Ms Saha said that Ms Mahanga did not like the beds she had provided so had provided her own. She said that Ms Matanga had put Ms Saha’s beds and all the other furniture/goods she claims belongs to Ms Matanga, in the hall and in other rooms in the house.
- I find Ms Saha’s evidence in this regard difficult to accept particularly given the enormous amount of goods shown in the photographs. I note too that the invoice from Rob’s Rubbish Removal records that the goods removed includes carpet. Ms Saha did not claim that Ms Matanga brought carpet onto the premises and it seems likely that this was carpet installed the premises that had been removed before the demolition commenced. I also note that the date on the invoice for the disposal of the goods is 5 May 2024, the date the tenancy ended (it had been changed by hand from 1 May to 5 May). This does not correspond with Ms Saha’s evidence that she put the goods outside on 5 th or 6 th of May and arranged for Robs Removals to dispose of them after Ms Matanga did not collect them. She was uncertain when Rob’s Rubbish collected the goods but thought it was about 11 December.
- Ms Saha has been partially successful in her claim and I consider it appropriate to award her payment of the Tribunal application fee.
Should a suppression order be made?
- Ms Saha applied, in her application, for a suppression order. However, while she has been partially successful, she has not been wholly or substantially successful as required by section 95A(1) of the Act. Her application for suppression of her name and identifying details is therefore dismissed.