What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158193?

The tribunal order states: Camille- Claudel Nortje must pay Central West Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5158193?

Rent Arrears: $2,525.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $486.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158193?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12268847-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158193?

The tribunal order states: Camille- Claudel Nortje must pay Central West Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5158193?

Rent Arrears: $2,525.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $486.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158193?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12268847-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27A Rangiatea Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5158193 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158193 — net $3,011.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 1.8.24	$2,525.00	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Outstanding water charges
Rubbish removal	$486.54	Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,011.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,011.54

Order

Camille- Claudel Nortje must pay Central West Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Jianping Fan $3,011.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed for want of evidence.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
This application last came before me for a case conference. The landlord was ordered to provide further evidence in support of their claims at least 5 working days prior to todays’ hearing. This was not done. The landlord attended the hearing this morning with a hardcopy bundle of evidence in support. Unfortunately, this placed the tenant at a disadvantage as she had not had the opportunity consider the evidence and provide an informed response. Notwithstanding this I will determine the landlord’s application based on what has been filed to date.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This is a landlord application and therefore the obligation rests with the landlord to provide the required evidence to support their various 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.
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.
The tenancy ended on 31 July 2024 pursuant to a Tribunal termination and possession order. The bond was released in full and applied towards the outstanding rent arrears.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 31 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the outstanding rent. The tenant also confirmed during the hearing that she accepts the outstanding rent debt.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Outstanding water charges
The landlord has applied for outstanding water charges of $508.16. The tenant does not agree with this claim.
The landlord has only provided their own schedule of charges in support of this claim. The landlord has not provided any Watercare invoices as evidence of the outstanding amounts. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that she did not have copies of the Watercare invoices readily available for the Tribunal this morning.
In the absence of Watercare invoices I am of the view that the landlord has not satisfied their obligation to provide proper evidence in support of the outstanding water charges. At the very least the landlord had an obligation to provide this evidence in support of their claim well prior to todays’ hearing.
The claim for outstanding water charges is not established and is therefore dismissed.

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 all rubbish.
The landlord provided an exit inspection report dated 1 August 2024 with photographs confirming an extensive amount of personal belongings and other miscellaneous items left behind by the tenant.
The tenant says that because her tenancy was terminated she did not have time to remove everything.
The landlord provided two invoices from Econowaste dated 9 August 2024 and 16 August 2024.
Having sighted the two invoices and the exit photographs in support I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the cost of removing the items which she left behind. The tenant also accepts that she did not have time to remove all her personal belongings. The amount claimed is reasonable.
The claim for rubbish removal is proved.

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. Repairs to walls
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the walls in the garage and the family room. The landlord referred me to various photographs of the garage and family room. The landlord also provided an invoice from LS Decorating dated 18 September 2024 for $1840.00.
The landlord accepted during the hearing that the alleged damage could not be seen in the photographs and because of this I have not been able to assess with any certainty whether this is a claim that the tenant should be liable for.
Having carefully reviewed the photographs I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claim has been established. Kitchen glass replacement
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to a kitchen cupboard glass panel. The landlord provided an invoice from Quality Kitchens NZ Limited dated 23 September 2024 for $1725.00. The tenant does not accept this claim.
The landlord referred me to various kitchen photographs contained within the exit inspection report dated 1 August 2024. The landlord also provided a hardcopy of two routine inspection reports dated 25 October 2016 and 8 March 2020.
The landlord was not able to provide an entry inspection report prepared at the time the tenant moved into the property in July 2016. From the hardcopy evidence provided by the landlord to the Tribunal this morning it is not possible for me to accurately determine what damage has occurred to the kitchen cupboard and whether the tenant is responsible for such damage as alleged.
Accordingly, the claim for kitchen glass replacement has not been established. Carpet replacement
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the carpet. They say that the carpet had to be replaced. The landlord provided an invoice from Y and F Innovation Limited dated 14 August 2024 for $2765.00.
The tenant disputes this claim saying that she had the carpet cleaned on multiple occasions.
The landlord referred me to various photographs of the carpet in the exit inspection report. The landlord also advised during the hearing that the carpet is approximately 8 years old and was there at the start of this tenancy. This means that in all likelihood the carpet is older. The photographs appear to show various areas of discolouration but nothing which would indicate actual damage beyond fair wear and tear for rental carpet of this age. The property manager who appeared for the landlord also confirmed that she has only been involved with this property since 2023.
Based on the hardcopy photographs provided this morning I am not able to assess any actual damage to the carpet as claimed by the landlord. Accordingly, the claim for carpet replacement has also not been established.
The claims in respect of damage to walls, kitchen glass replacement and carpet replacement are dismissed.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with their application and therefore is not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158193 — net $3,011.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 1.8.24	$2,525.00	The claim for rent arrears is proven. Outstanding water charges
Rubbish removal	$486.54	Rubbish removal
Net award	$3,011.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,011.54

Order

Camille- Claudel Nortje must pay Central West Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Jianping Fan $3,011.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed for want of evidence.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
This application last came before me for a case conference. The landlord was ordered to provide further evidence in support of their claims at least 5 working days prior to todays’ hearing. This was not done. The landlord attended the hearing this morning with a hardcopy bundle of evidence in support. Unfortunately, this placed the tenant at a disadvantage as she had not had the opportunity consider the evidence and provide an informed response. Notwithstanding this I will determine the landlord’s application based on what has been filed to date.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This is a landlord application and therefore the obligation rests with the landlord to provide the required evidence to support their various 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.
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.
The tenancy ended on 31 July 2024 pursuant to a Tribunal termination and possession order. The bond was released in full and applied towards the outstanding rent arrears.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 31 July 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted the landlord’s rent ledger I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the outstanding rent. The tenant also confirmed during the hearing that she accepts the outstanding rent debt.
The claim for rent arrears is proven. Outstanding water charges
The landlord has applied for outstanding water charges of $508.16. The tenant does not agree with this claim.
The landlord has only provided their own schedule of charges in support of this claim. The landlord has not provided any Watercare invoices as evidence of the outstanding amounts. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that she did not have copies of the Watercare invoices readily available for the Tribunal this morning.
In the absence of Watercare invoices I am of the view that the landlord has not satisfied their obligation to provide proper evidence in support of the outstanding water charges. At the very least the landlord had an obligation to provide this evidence in support of their claim well prior to todays’ hearing.
The claim for outstanding water charges is not established and is therefore dismissed.

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 all rubbish.
The landlord provided an exit inspection report dated 1 August 2024 with photographs confirming an extensive amount of personal belongings and other miscellaneous items left behind by the tenant.
The tenant says that because her tenancy was terminated she did not have time to remove everything.
The landlord provided two invoices from Econowaste dated 9 August 2024 and 16 August 2024.
Having sighted the two invoices and the exit photographs in support I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the cost of removing the items which she left behind. The tenant also accepts that she did not have time to remove all her personal belongings. The amount claimed is reasonable.
The claim for rubbish removal is proved.

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. Repairs to walls
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the walls in the garage and the family room. The landlord referred me to various photographs of the garage and family room. The landlord also provided an invoice from LS Decorating dated 18 September 2024 for $1840.00.
The landlord accepted during the hearing that the alleged damage could not be seen in the photographs and because of this I have not been able to assess with any certainty whether this is a claim that the tenant should be liable for.
Having carefully reviewed the photographs I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claim has been established. Kitchen glass replacement
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to a kitchen cupboard glass panel. The landlord provided an invoice from Quality Kitchens NZ Limited dated 23 September 2024 for $1725.00. The tenant does not accept this claim.
The landlord referred me to various kitchen photographs contained within the exit inspection report dated 1 August 2024. The landlord also provided a hardcopy of two routine inspection reports dated 25 October 2016 and 8 March 2020.
The landlord was not able to provide an entry inspection report prepared at the time the tenant moved into the property in July 2016. From the hardcopy evidence provided by the landlord to the Tribunal this morning it is not possible for me to accurately determine what damage has occurred to the kitchen cupboard and whether the tenant is responsible for such damage as alleged.
Accordingly, the claim for kitchen glass replacement has not been established. Carpet replacement
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the carpet. They say that the carpet had to be replaced. The landlord provided an invoice from Y and F Innovation Limited dated 14 August 2024 for $2765.00.
The tenant disputes this claim saying that she had the carpet cleaned on multiple occasions.
The landlord referred me to various photographs of the carpet in the exit inspection report. The landlord also advised during the hearing that the carpet is approximately 8 years old and was there at the start of this tenancy. This means that in all likelihood the carpet is older. The photographs appear to show various areas of discolouration but nothing which would indicate actual damage beyond fair wear and tear for rental carpet of this age. The property manager who appeared for the landlord also confirmed that she has only been involved with this property since 2023.
Based on the hardcopy photographs provided this morning I am not able to assess any actual damage to the carpet as claimed by the landlord. Accordingly, the claim for carpet replacement has also not been established.
The claims in respect of damage to walls, kitchen glass replacement and carpet replacement are dismissed.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with their application and therefore is not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158193 — Rent arrears at 27A Rangiatea Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158193 — Rent arrears at 27A Rangiatea Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions