What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5112330?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Gutschlag to pay Russell Charles Jowsey $200.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5112330?

Outgoings: Firewood: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5112330?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5112330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11774857-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5112330?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Gutschlag to pay Russell Charles Jowsey $200.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5112330?

Outgoings: Firewood: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5112330?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5112330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11774857-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Jonathan Place, Putaruru, Putaruru 3411 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5112330 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5112330 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Outgoings: firewood	$200.00	Outgoings: firewood
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$1,088.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5112330 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Outgoings: firewood	$200.00	Outgoings: firewood
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$1,088.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

Jonathan Gutschlag to pay Russell Charles Jowsey $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,088.19 (3407028-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Russell Charles Jowsey: $200.00 Jonathan Gutschlag: $888.19

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

OUTGOINGS

Section 39(3) RTA states: The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
The landlord seeks compensation for the following outgoings: a. Gas bottle refill (x2):$266.69 b. Firewood replacement:$400.00
I deal with each issue in turn below. Gas bottle refill
The landlord gave evidence that two full gas bottles were provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims they were both empty at the end of the tenancy and had to be refilled at a cost of $266.69. The landlord did not submit an invoice for this amount.
The tenant gave evidence that the gas bottles were nearly empty at the beginning of the tenancy and they had to pay for their refill approximately 5 weeks after the tenancy began. The tenant submitted a copy of their partner’s bank statement, which shows a payment of $282.84 was made to Vector On Gas Ltd on 6 October 2022. The tenancy began on 20 August 2022, which is
5 weeks prior.
The tenant also submitted an email from Vector sent on 16 September 2022 which states that the cost to refill each gas bottle is $144.02 including GST and delivery.
The tenant gave evidence that they left one full gas bottle and a second bottle almost empty at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
The tenant is responsible for paying for the consumption of gas used during the tenancy.
The landlord bares the onus of proving that two full gas tanks were supplied to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy on the balance of probabilities. I find that the landlord has not done this.
The tenant denies that two full gas tanks were supplied to them at the beginning of the tenancy and the landlord has not submitted any evidence to support the claim that this is incorrect. The tenancy agreement and pre-inspection report do not mention anything about the gas bottled and the landlord did not submit an invoice for the filling of the two gas bottles shortly before the tenancy began.
In the absence of any corroborating evidence, I am left unsure about whether two full gas bottle were supplied to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed. Firewood
The landlord gave evidence that approximately 5m² of firewood was provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims there was nothing but sawdust left at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation of $400.00 to replace the firewood. The landlord did not submit an invoice for this amount but gave evidence that the cost of firewood is approximately $150.00 per square metre.
The tenant accepts that firewood was provided to them at the beginning of the tenancy, but submits that the amount provided was only approximately 2m² not 5m². The tenant accepts that no firewood was left at the end of the tenancy, but gave evidence that this was not brought up during the final inspection. Further, the tenant claims that the requirement that they replenish the firewood is included as an addendum to the tenancy agreement, which they never signed. Analysis
Firewood is an outgoing and therefore, the tenant is responsible for paying for its use during the tenancy.
The tenant accepts that some firewood was provided to them at the beginning of the tenancy and not replaced at the end. They must pay the landlord some compensation for their use of the firewood provided.
The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that approximately 5m² of firewood was provided to the tenant. No photographs were submitted of the firewood at the beginning of the tenancy and nothing is noted in the pre- inspection report. The landlord has also not proven the amount they claim to have spent replenishing the firewood, as they claim to have paid cash and no invoice was submitted.
The Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that promotes the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. 1 In the circumstances of this case, I consider it fair and reasonable that the tenant pay the landlord $200.00 to cover the cost of replacing the firewood used by them during the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the firewood is granted for $200.00. CLEANING AND LAWNS/GARDEN MAINTENANCE The Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The term “premises” includes any land and appurtenances, other than facilities. 2 The requirement to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the property. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the inside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the oven was dirty. The landlord seeks compensation of $30.00 to cover the cost of cleaning supplies.
The landlord also submits the tenant did not leave the lawns and garden reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord seeks compensation of $392.00 to cover their labour ($320.00) and green waste removal ($72.00).
I deal with the claim for cleaning first and lawns/garden maintenance second. Cleaning Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord accepts that the inside of the premises was left in a clean and tidy state, but gave evidence that the oven was very dirty. The landlord claims they purchased oven cleaner and spent a couple of hours cleaning the oven. The landlord did not submit any photographs of the oven or an invoice for the purchase of oven cleaner.
The tenant gave evidence strongly disputing that the oven was left in a dirty condition. The tenant gave evidence that their partner used to work as a commercial cleaner and the two of them undertook a thorough cleaning of the property, including the oven, at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord bares the onus of proving that the tenant left the premises in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition on the balance of probabilities. I have doubts about whether failing to clean an oven renders an otherwise clean and tidy property unreasonably clean and tidy however, the landlord has not proven that the tenant did not clean the oven. The tenant gave evidence that they did and the landlord has not submitted any evidence such as photographs to prove otherwise. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $30.00 for the purchase of oven cleaner is dismissed. Lawns/garden maintenance Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord gave evidence that the grass and trees were overgrown at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims they spent two full days, together with a friend, attending to the lawns and garden. The landlord seeks compensation for their time and labour of $320.00, as well as the cost of disposing of the green waste, which they say was $72.00, although no invoice was submitted.
The tenant strongly denies that they left the lawns and garden in an untidy state. The tenant gave evidence that they regularly mowed the lawns during the tenancy and left them in a very tidy state at the end.
The tenant gave further evidence that they previously asked the landlord for permission to prune some trees, but this was declined. The tenant submits that pruning trees falls outside of the ambit of their responsibility and is the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord accepts this is the case, but submits that the lawns were not left in a clean and tidy state. Analysis
The landlord has not proven that the tenant left the lawns in an unreasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. The tenant denies that this was the case and the landlord has not submitted any supporting evidence such as photographs or an exit inspection report proving otherwise. In these circumstances, I am unsure about the state of the lawns at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is dismissed.

BOND

A bond of $2,100.00 was paid by the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. A balance of $1,088.69 remains with the Bond Centre.
The landlord is to receive a refund of $200.00 from the bond and the tenant is to receive a refund of $888.19.

FILING FEE

I do not consider the landlord has been substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the landlord the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5112330 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Jonathan Place, Putaruru, Putaruru 3411

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5112330 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Jonathan Place, Putaruru, Putaruru 3411

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

OUTGOINGS

BOND

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

OUTGOINGS

BOND

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions