What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4417121?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4417121?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4417121?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4417121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9558148-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4417121?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4417121?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4417121?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4417121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9558148-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Whyte Street, Foxton 4814 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4417121 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4417121 — net $75.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Net award	$75.00
Bond	$1,580.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.00

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Amber Shore must pay Property Brokers Limited For Agent For Mahadev's Investment Trust the sum of $75.00 to be deducted from the bond.
Having viewed documentation I am satisfied that the names of Garry Murria & Kastuyia Murria should be removed as landlords. They are not trustees of the Trust. The order is amended accordingly.
Mahadev's Investment Trust must pay Amber Shore $770.44 immediately, made up of compensation and the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,580.00 (5033681-014) apportioned as follows: Property Brokers $75.00 Amber Shore$1505.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Duncan represented the landlord.
Property Brokers has applied for compensation for cleaning costs and refund of the bond. The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to supply a working oven and the ability to use a washing machine for the first 5 weeks of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 2 June 2020 under the management of Rental Manager 2016 Ltd as agents for the landlords. On 16 October 20220 Property Brokers Ltd took over management of the tenancy. Claim by Property Brokers

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Property Brokers are claiming $345.00 for cleaning and caret cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
The obligation of a tenant is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not in a re-tenantable or ready for sale condition.
My view of the photographic evidence was that the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy, including the carpet, although the tenant did acknowledge she did not have time to wipe out the cupboards or shelves or wash the floors. Taking this into account I have allowed $75.00 towards the costs of cleaning.
The amounts ordered are proved. Claim by Amber Shore against Mahadev's Investment Trust Garry Murria & Kastuyia Murria
Amber Marie Shore claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
As Rental Manager 2016 Ltd are no longer the property manager the claim is appropriately brought against the landlords.
Ms Duncan advised that she provided the landlords with a copy of the tenant’s application on 8 November 2022.
The tenant said that on moving into the premises she discovered the oven top to be shattered and in an unusable condition. The laundry tub was also rotten at the bottom and not affixed to the floor so there was no where to drain the water from the washing machine and the machine taps did not work. She advised the property manager.
On 4 June she emailed the property manager asking if someone could come and view the property and was also asking when the oven would be sorted. The property manager responded they would follow up with the owner. The owner responded to them that an oven and tub had been ordered.
On 11 June the property manager emailed the tenant to see if she had received the stove and tub but she had not.
On 17 June the tenant emailed the property manager asking when the stove and tub would be installed as they had been delivered but were sitting in the middle of the kitchen. The manager said he would follow up.
On 29 June the tenant served a 21 day letter ( she allowed an extra 7 days on the required 14 day letter as there were a number of times to be attended too), but key were the requests were to have the stove and washing machine installed.
In total 5 weeks elapsed before there as a working stove and tub enabling the washing to be undertaken.
The tenant is claiming for the estimated costs of takeaway meals and costs of a laundromat over that 5-week period. There were 3 children residing in the house in addition to the tenant. She is also applying for a refund of rent for that period. The law
Regulation 7(2)(b) Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, which set the minimum standards for housing prior to the Healthy Homes Standards coming into force, provides there must be: adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.
While there is no requirement by regulation to provide a laundry tub, premises must be presented in a reasonable state of repair, and clearly this was not the case in respect of the laundry tub.
As these acts occurred more than one year ago the tenant has not applied for exemplary damages. See s.109 RTA. This does not however preclude the consideration of a claim for compensation.
The tenant helpfully provided an indication of the costs for laundry during this period and for meals that needed to be repurchased. Understandably, given the length of time that has passed, receipts were not presented. I accept that take out meals had to be purchased but it also must be recognised that even with a fully functioning oven there would have been expenses in purchasing food, even if the cost may be less than take out food.
I also take into account the loss of amenity. This is compensation for a something that you were paying for in your rent, but not received. In this case a fully functioning oven and the ability to do laundry.
The tenant claims the house was uninhabitable and hence should receive a full refund of 5 weeks rent @ $395.00 per week. I do not accept this submission. Aside from the issues raised the house was fully functional.
I have taken all these factors into account and award compensation of $750.00.
Because Amber Marie Shore has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4417121 — net $75.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Net award	$75.00
Bond	$1,580.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.00

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Amber Shore must pay Property Brokers Limited For Agent For Mahadev's Investment Trust the sum of $75.00 to be deducted from the bond.
Having viewed documentation I am satisfied that the names of Garry Murria & Kastuyia Murria should be removed as landlords. They are not trustees of the Trust. The order is amended accordingly.
Mahadev's Investment Trust must pay Amber Shore $770.44 immediately, made up of compensation and the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,580.00 (5033681-014) apportioned as follows: Property Brokers $75.00 Amber Shore$1505.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Duncan represented the landlord.
Property Brokers has applied for compensation for cleaning costs and refund of the bond. The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to supply a working oven and the ability to use a washing machine for the first 5 weeks of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 2 June 2020 under the management of Rental Manager 2016 Ltd as agents for the landlords. On 16 October 20220 Property Brokers Ltd took over management of the tenancy. Claim by Property Brokers

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Property Brokers are claiming $345.00 for cleaning and caret cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
The obligation of a tenant is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not in a re-tenantable or ready for sale condition.
My view of the photographic evidence was that the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy, including the carpet, although the tenant did acknowledge she did not have time to wipe out the cupboards or shelves or wash the floors. Taking this into account I have allowed $75.00 towards the costs of cleaning.
The amounts ordered are proved. Claim by Amber Shore against Mahadev's Investment Trust Garry Murria & Kastuyia Murria
Amber Marie Shore claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
As Rental Manager 2016 Ltd are no longer the property manager the claim is appropriately brought against the landlords.
Ms Duncan advised that she provided the landlords with a copy of the tenant’s application on 8 November 2022.
The tenant said that on moving into the premises she discovered the oven top to be shattered and in an unusable condition. The laundry tub was also rotten at the bottom and not affixed to the floor so there was no where to drain the water from the washing machine and the machine taps did not work. She advised the property manager.
On 4 June she emailed the property manager asking if someone could come and view the property and was also asking when the oven would be sorted. The property manager responded they would follow up with the owner. The owner responded to them that an oven and tub had been ordered.
On 11 June the property manager emailed the tenant to see if she had received the stove and tub but she had not.
On 17 June the tenant emailed the property manager asking when the stove and tub would be installed as they had been delivered but were sitting in the middle of the kitchen. The manager said he would follow up.
On 29 June the tenant served a 21 day letter ( she allowed an extra 7 days on the required 14 day letter as there were a number of times to be attended too), but key were the requests were to have the stove and washing machine installed.
In total 5 weeks elapsed before there as a working stove and tub enabling the washing to be undertaken.
The tenant is claiming for the estimated costs of takeaway meals and costs of a laundromat over that 5-week period. There were 3 children residing in the house in addition to the tenant. She is also applying for a refund of rent for that period. The law
Regulation 7(2)(b) Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, which set the minimum standards for housing prior to the Healthy Homes Standards coming into force, provides there must be: adequate means of preparing food and of cooking food, both by boiling and by baking.
While there is no requirement by regulation to provide a laundry tub, premises must be presented in a reasonable state of repair, and clearly this was not the case in respect of the laundry tub.
As these acts occurred more than one year ago the tenant has not applied for exemplary damages. See s.109 RTA. This does not however preclude the consideration of a claim for compensation.
The tenant helpfully provided an indication of the costs for laundry during this period and for meals that needed to be repurchased. Understandably, given the length of time that has passed, receipts were not presented. I accept that take out meals had to be purchased but it also must be recognised that even with a fully functioning oven there would have been expenses in purchasing food, even if the cost may be less than take out food.
I also take into account the loss of amenity. This is compensation for a something that you were paying for in your rent, but not received. In this case a fully functioning oven and the ability to do laundry.
The tenant claims the house was uninhabitable and hence should receive a full refund of 5 weeks rent @ $395.00 per week. I do not accept this submission. Aside from the issues raised the house was fully functional.
I have taken all these factors into account and award compensation of $750.00.
Because Amber Marie Shore has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4417121 — Cleanliness at 22 Whyte Street, Foxton 4814

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4417121 — Cleanliness at 22 Whyte Street, Foxton 4814

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions