What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4587870 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4587870?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to provide gar…: $787.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4587870?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4587870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9532958-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4587870 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4587870?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to provide gar…: $787.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4587870?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4587870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9532958-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

24 Martindale Lane, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4587870 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4587870 — net $587.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Compensation: Failure to provide garage door remote		$787.50	Failure to provide garage door remote
Total award	$200.00	$787.50
Net award		$587.50
Bond		$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$587.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond in full to the tenant immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $587.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today. As [the tenant/s] is profoundly deaf the Tribunal was assisted by sign language interpreters.
[The landlord/s] attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and for steam cleaning of the carpet, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord withdrew their claim for carpet cleaning before today’s hearing started.
The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to provide a working garage door remote and the alarm code for the duration of the tenancy, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy ended on 12 April 2023. The tenancy had been in place for two years.

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 Tenants obligation is to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and free from rubbish. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 , not commercially clean 2 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 3 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4
The landlord took photographs of the property at a vacate inspection on the 12 April 2023.
The tenant showed a video that she had made of the state of the property after cleaning on the evening of the 11 April.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that the tenant left the house in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, but that there were some areas which needed a quick wipe and that the garage was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, as it needed walls and windowsills wiped, laundry tub cleaned, floors swept etc. I have awarded $200.00 for this cleaning. In coming to this amount I have assessed the cleaning to be 4 hours of cleaning at $50 per hour, which I consider a reasonable amount to get the cleaning to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
I award the landlord $200.00 for cleaning Failure to provide the garage door remote and the alarm code. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
In the tenancy agreement the chattels are recorded as including the garage door opener and the alarm.
This means that the landlord had an obligation to ensure that the tenant was provided with those chattels in working order throughout the tenancy.
The property has a garage which is attached to the house. At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord noted in the inspection report that he had not provided the tenant with the garage door remote but would get one. The tenant says that despite her reminding the landlord at each inspection and at other times during the tenancy that she still did not have the garage door remote, they failed to provide her with one. This meant that she could not put her car in the garage without having to access the house first. She said that as a result she did not use the garage for her car as she had intended.
The tenant also says that she was never given the alarm code nor shown how to use the alarm. Again, the tenant provided evidence of her correspondence with the landlord about this issue asking to be shown how to use the alarm and to be given the alarm code. The tenant says that as profoundly deaf women living on her own with her children, she was extremely safety conscious and that she wanted to use the alarm to secure her property when she was not home.
I am satisfied that tenant has not been provided with the alarm code so she was unable to use the alarm and also was not provided with the garage door remote. The tenant asked for $20.00 for each week of the tenancy in compensation for this breach. I have awarded $7.50 per week. This takes into account the inconvenience to the tenant, and that the tenant whilst reminding the landlord of these issues, did not issue a s46 notice. Name suppression and filing fee
Each party requested suppression and as each party has been somewhat successful in their application, suppression is granted to both of them.
As both have been successful in their application each party will bear its own filing fee, and no award will be made for the other party to pay that fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4587870 — net $587.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Compensation: Failure to provide garage door remote		$787.50	Failure to provide garage door remote
Total award	$200.00	$787.50
Net award		$587.50
Bond		$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$587.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond in full to the tenant immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $587.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today. As [the tenant/s] is profoundly deaf the Tribunal was assisted by sign language interpreters.
[The landlord/s] attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and for steam cleaning of the carpet, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord withdrew their claim for carpet cleaning before today’s hearing started.
The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to provide a working garage door remote and the alarm code for the duration of the tenancy, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy ended on 12 April 2023. The tenancy had been in place for two years.

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 Tenants obligation is to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state and free from rubbish. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 , not commercially clean 2 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 3 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4
The landlord took photographs of the property at a vacate inspection on the 12 April 2023.
The tenant showed a video that she had made of the state of the property after cleaning on the evening of the 11 April.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that the tenant left the house in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, but that there were some areas which needed a quick wipe and that the garage was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, as it needed walls and windowsills wiped, laundry tub cleaned, floors swept etc. I have awarded $200.00 for this cleaning. In coming to this amount I have assessed the cleaning to be 4 hours of cleaning at $50 per hour, which I consider a reasonable amount to get the cleaning to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
I award the landlord $200.00 for cleaning Failure to provide the garage door remote and the alarm code. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
In the tenancy agreement the chattels are recorded as including the garage door opener and the alarm.
This means that the landlord had an obligation to ensure that the tenant was provided with those chattels in working order throughout the tenancy.
The property has a garage which is attached to the house. At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord noted in the inspection report that he had not provided the tenant with the garage door remote but would get one. The tenant says that despite her reminding the landlord at each inspection and at other times during the tenancy that she still did not have the garage door remote, they failed to provide her with one. This meant that she could not put her car in the garage without having to access the house first. She said that as a result she did not use the garage for her car as she had intended.
The tenant also says that she was never given the alarm code nor shown how to use the alarm. Again, the tenant provided evidence of her correspondence with the landlord about this issue asking to be shown how to use the alarm and to be given the alarm code. The tenant says that as profoundly deaf women living on her own with her children, she was extremely safety conscious and that she wanted to use the alarm to secure her property when she was not home.
I am satisfied that tenant has not been provided with the alarm code so she was unable to use the alarm and also was not provided with the garage door remote. The tenant asked for $20.00 for each week of the tenancy in compensation for this breach. I have awarded $7.50 per week. This takes into account the inconvenience to the tenant, and that the tenant whilst reminding the landlord of these issues, did not issue a s46 notice. Name suppression and filing fee
Each party requested suppression and as each party has been somewhat successful in their application, suppression is granted to both of them.
As both have been successful in their application each party will bear its own filing fee, and no award will be made for the other party to pay that fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4587870 — Cleanliness at 24 Martindale Lane, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4587870 — Cleanliness at 24 Martindale Lane, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

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

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

Frequently asked questions