How much money was awarded in case 4548349?

Limited As Agent For Anthony Smith A…: $220.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4548349?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4548349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9197317-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4548349?

Limited As Agent For Anthony Smith A…: $220.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4548349?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4548349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9197317-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Chilton Road, Hospital Hill, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4548349 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4548349?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4548349. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Limited as agent for Anthony Smith and Claire Smith as trustees of the Tontine Family Trust to pay Mark Robert Dekker	$220.44		Limited as agent for Anthony Smith and Claire Smith as trustees of the Tontine Family Trust to pay Mark Robert Dekker

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Property Brokers Limited as agent for Anthony Smith and Claire Smith as trustees of the Tontine Family Trust to pay Mark Robert Dekker $220.44 in compensation for lack of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 (5844184-001) to Mark Robert Dekker immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord representatives included Ms Dean and Ms Cowan and they attended in person at the Napier District Court. Ms Gallagher attended as an observer. The tenant attended by telephone.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation of lack of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has filed a cross application for compensation for cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

This is an unfortunate situation where there has been a misunderstanding between the tenant and the property manager which has led to a dispute. The entire situation would not have arisen if the landlord had left the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the commencement of the tenancy.

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)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord referred to the photographs taken in the exit inspection report.

The tenant similarly claims that the premises were not clean at the start of the tenancy. The tenant referred to photographs he has uploaded at the start of the tenancy to the landlord’s entry inspection report. The tenant explained that he had understood following a discussion with Ms Dean that the property would be professionally cleaned after they vacated at the landlord’s cost given the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.

During the hearing, Ms Dean confirmed that she had told the tenant that if he left the property in the same condition as it was when he moved in that he would receive his bond back. On that basis, I consider that the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy was varied by Ms Dean and the standard was instead reduced to the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.

Having considered the photographs in detail it is apparent that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start or end of the tenancy, in particular, the windows, floors and blinds were not clean.

I consider that the tenant left the premises in the same state they found it. Accordingly, there is no breach by the tenant of their obligation to leave the premises in the same condition as at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA places an obligation on a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. A breach of section 45(1)(a) entitles the tenant to compensation.

The tenant claims the premises were not clean at the start of the tenancy and claims one weeks rent as compensation, being $880.00. The tenant referred to photographs uploaded by the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy and included in the entry inspection report. The tenant claims to have attempted to telephone the property manager on two occasions in the first week of their tenancy and to have raised the cleanliness issue during the first inspection of the premises.

The property manager claims to have offered to have had the premises professional cleaned two months into the tenancy but the tenant declined the offer.

I have no hesitation in finding that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition, which is evident in the entry inspection photographs. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $200.00 reasonable to compensate the tenant for the time spent cleaning the premises at the start of the tenancy. The fact that the tenant did not ask the landlord to arrange to have the premises commercially cleaned does not relieve the landlord from the obligation to compensate the tenant for the breach of section 45(1)(a) of the RTA. Filing fee

Because Mark Robert Dekker has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. T Lee-Lewis 19 July 2023

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4548349. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Limited as agent for Anthony Smith and Claire Smith as trustees of the Tontine Family Trust to pay Mark Robert Dekker	$220.44		Limited as agent for Anthony Smith and Claire Smith as trustees of the Tontine Family Trust to pay Mark Robert Dekker

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Property Brokers Limited as agent for Anthony Smith and Claire Smith as trustees of the Tontine Family Trust to pay Mark Robert Dekker $220.44 in compensation for lack of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,520.00 (5844184-001) to Mark Robert Dekker immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord representatives included Ms Dean and Ms Cowan and they attended in person at the Napier District Court. Ms Gallagher attended as an observer. The tenant attended by telephone.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation of lack of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has filed a cross application for compensation for cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This is an unfortunate situation where there has been a misunderstanding between the tenant and the property manager which has led to a dispute. The entire situation would not have arisen if the landlord had left the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the commencement of the tenancy.

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)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord referred to the photographs taken in the exit inspection report.
The tenant similarly claims that the premises were not clean at the start of the tenancy. The tenant referred to photographs he has uploaded at the start of the tenancy to the landlord’s entry inspection report. The tenant explained that he had understood following a discussion with Ms Dean that the property would be professionally cleaned after they vacated at the landlord’s cost given the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
During the hearing, Ms Dean confirmed that she had told the tenant that if he left the property in the same condition as it was when he moved in that he would receive his bond back. On that basis, I consider that the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy was varied by Ms Dean and the standard was instead reduced to the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Having considered the photographs in detail it is apparent that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start or end of the tenancy, in particular, the windows, floors and blinds were not clean.
I consider that the tenant left the premises in the same state they found it. Accordingly, there is no breach by the tenant of their obligation to leave the premises in the same condition as at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Section 45(1)(a) of the RTA places an obligation on a landlord to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. A breach of section 45(1)(a) entitles the tenant to compensation.
The tenant claims the premises were not clean at the start of the tenancy and claims one weeks rent as compensation, being $880.00. The tenant referred to photographs uploaded by the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy and included in the entry inspection report. The tenant claims to have attempted to telephone the property manager on two occasions in the first week of their tenancy and to have raised the cleanliness issue during the first inspection of the premises.
The property manager claims to have offered to have had the premises professional cleaned two months into the tenancy but the tenant declined the offer.
I have no hesitation in finding that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean condition, which is evident in the entry inspection photographs. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $200.00 reasonable to compensate the tenant for the time spent cleaning the premises at the start of the tenancy. The fact that the tenant did not ask the landlord to arrange to have the premises commercially cleaned does not relieve the landlord from the obligation to compensate the tenant for the breach of section 45(1)(a) of the RTA. Filing fee
Because Mark Robert Dekker has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. T Lee-Lewis 19 July 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4548349 — Cleanliness at 5 Chilton Road, Hospital Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4548349 — Cleanliness at 5 Chilton Road, Hospital Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Did the landlord fail to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions