How much money was awarded in case 4617609?

Cleaning: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617609?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9273799-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4617609?

Cleaning: $165.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617609?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9273799-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Simmonds Crescent, Springfield, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4617609 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4617609?

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 4617609 — net $185.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$165.00	Carpet cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$185.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$185.44

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

Ańdrea Claridge and Aaron Lance Shannon Gourlay to pay Innovative Property Management Limited As Agent For David & Cara Black $185.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (5191757-002) immediately apportioned as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much, if anything, is owed for rent?

The landlord confirmed that rent was reduced to $550.00 instead of $640.00 from 1 September 2022 until a roof leak was fixed (see mediated order dated 29 August 2022). The landlord says the leak was initially fixed on 20 October, but it was still leaking so the roofer went back on 21 November to complete the job. The landlord says that rent was then reinstated from 30 December, but the tenants have failed to pay the difference to the end of the tenancy on 4 May. The landlord seeks $1620.00 but after checking the mediated order, it appears the figure should be $1607.14. The landlord says the tenant has been complaining about another leak, but this is not connected to the original leak and associated mediated order. The property owner says she has not encountered any leaks since she moved back into the premises.

I do not find that the tenants are liable for any further rent. While I accept that the landlord visited the premises on 30 November and again on 14 December and did not see any leaks, the tenant has provided a video which shows leaking from the conservatory roof on 11 January. I accept the evidence from the tenant that they were waiting for the roofer to come back out to lift the roof sheets and carry out further investigations. As this did not eventuate, they did not send the video to the landlord. The landlord does not dispute that there was a plan to lift the roof sheets, but they were waiting for the tenant to provide further evidence which was not received. I do not find that the plan to lift the roof sheets was contingent on the tenant providing further evidence. The email exchange simply states there was no evidence [on 14 December] of any leaks and any photos and/or videos would help. I find it more likely than not that the water leaking in the conservatory on 11 January is connected to the original leak thus the mediated order has not been satisfied. Accordingly, I find that the tenants are not liable for the reinstated rent.

This part of the landlord’s claim is 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 tenants do not dispute that the carpet in bedroom 2 needed to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy and there were some other minor stains which also needed cleaning.

The amount ordered is proved.

As Innovative Property Management Limited As Agent For David & Cara Black has partly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617609 — net $185.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$165.00	Carpet cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$185.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$185.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Ańdrea Claridge and Aaron Lance Shannon Gourlay to pay Innovative Property Management Limited As Agent For David & Cara Black $185.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (5191757-002) immediately apportioned as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much, if anything, is owed for rent?

The landlord confirmed that rent was reduced to $550.00 instead of $640.00 from 1 September 2022 until a roof leak was fixed (see mediated order dated 29 August 2022). The landlord says the leak was initially fixed on 20 October, but it was still leaking so the roofer went back on 21 November to complete the job. The landlord says that rent was then reinstated from 30 December, but the tenants have failed to pay the difference to the end of the tenancy on 4 May. The landlord seeks $1620.00 but after checking the mediated order, it appears the figure should be $1607.14. The landlord says the tenant has been complaining about another leak, but this is not connected to the original leak and associated mediated order. The property owner says she has not encountered any leaks since she moved back into the premises.
I do not find that the tenants are liable for any further rent. While I accept that the landlord visited the premises on 30 November and again on 14 December and did not see any leaks, the tenant has provided a video which shows leaking from the conservatory roof on 11 January. I accept the evidence from the tenant that they were waiting for the roofer to come back out to lift the roof sheets and carry out further investigations. As this did not eventuate, they did not send the video to the landlord. The landlord does not dispute that there was a plan to lift the roof sheets, but they were waiting for the tenant to provide further evidence which was not received. I do not find that the plan to lift the roof sheets was contingent on the tenant providing further evidence. The email exchange simply states there was no evidence [on 14 December] of any leaks and any photos and/or videos would help. I find it more likely than not that the water leaking in the conservatory on 11 January is connected to the original leak thus the mediated order has not been satisfied. Accordingly, I find that the tenants are not liable for the reinstated rent.
This part of the landlord’s claim is 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 tenants do not dispute that the carpet in bedroom 2 needed to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy and there were some other minor stains which also needed cleaning.
The amount ordered is proved.
As Innovative Property Management Limited As Agent For David & Cara Black has partly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617609 — Cleanliness at 33 Simmonds Crescent, Springfield, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617609 — Cleanliness at 33 Simmonds Crescent, Springfield, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much, if anything, is owed for rent?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much, if anything, is owed for rent?

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