What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4631549 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case but no order is

How much money was awarded in case 4631549?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $654.67 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,184.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631549?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9469269-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4631549 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case but no order is

How much money was awarded in case 4631549?

Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $654.67 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,184.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631549?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9469269-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

179 Palmers Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4631549 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4631549 — net $2,099.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning (consent	$654.67	Cleaning (consent
Rubbish removal (reduced	$1,184.35	Rubbish removal (reduced
Carpet cleaning (consent	$240.00	Carpet cleaning (consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,099.46
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,099.46

An application for suppression has been made in this case but no order is made.

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Gold Property Management Limited as agent for Julie Sinukaban $2,099.46 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5909211-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Gold Property Management Limited as agent for Julie Sinukaban: $2,099.46 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $300.54

The landlord’s application for rent arrears is withdrawn.

The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Christiansen represented the landlord. The landlord’s application

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

The landlord withdrew the application for rent arrears ($85.71).

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for cleaning and carpet cleaning. I have allowed those claims by consent.

After hearing the tenants’ evidence, the landlord reduced the claim for rubbish removal. I have awarded the reduced amount based on the photographic evidence produced and the tenants’ acknowledgment that they did not remove all their rubbish. The tenants’ application

The tenants have applied for compensation for alleged breaches by the owner of the premises in relation to the sleepout and the caravan at the premises.

The tenants seek compensation because they say a caravan was provided as part of the tenancy but was unliveable, and the sleepout was unconsented and therefore unlawful for use.

The tenancy started on 2 May 2022. The tenancy agreement is between the owner of the premises and the tenants.

The owner’s agent Gold Property Management Ltd (GPML) only became the landlord on 9 June 2022. Mr Christiansen gave evidence that the old caravan on site was not included in the tenancy agreement nor was it part of the management agreement between the owner and her agent.

Generally, an agent is not liable in law for the actions of its principle. So, GPML is not liable for any alleged breaches by the owner who was the landlord when the tenancy started.

The tenants’ claims in relation to the caravan and the sleepout date to the commencement of the tenancy. If the sleepout was unlawful then, the claim must be made against the landlord at the time – the owner.

The tenants can pursue a claim against the owner of the premises for breaches that they allege occurred at the start of the tenancy, but not against GPML.

I have therefore dismissed the tenants’ application against GPML.

On the landlord’s successful application I have reimbursed the Tribunal filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.

The tenants sought name suppression. They are not entitled to a name suppression order because their application is unsuccessful, and they accepted most of the landlord’s claims – see section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4631549 — net $2,099.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning (consent	$654.67	Cleaning (consent
Rubbish removal (reduced	$1,184.35	Rubbish removal (reduced
Carpet cleaning (consent	$240.00	Carpet cleaning (consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,099.46
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,099.46

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case but no order is made.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Gold Property Management Limited as agent for Julie Sinukaban $2,099.46 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5909211-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Gold Property Management Limited as agent for Julie Sinukaban: $2,099.46 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $300.54
The landlord’s application for rent arrears is withdrawn.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Christiansen represented the landlord. The landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord withdrew the application for rent arrears ($85.71).
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for cleaning and carpet cleaning. I have allowed those claims by consent.
After hearing the tenants’ evidence, the landlord reduced the claim for rubbish removal. I have awarded the reduced amount based on the photographic evidence produced and the tenants’ acknowledgment that they did not remove all their rubbish. The tenants’ application
The tenants have applied for compensation for alleged breaches by the owner of the premises in relation to the sleepout and the caravan at the premises.
The tenants seek compensation because they say a caravan was provided as part of the tenancy but was unliveable, and the sleepout was unconsented and therefore unlawful for use.
The tenancy started on 2 May 2022. The tenancy agreement is between the owner of the premises and the tenants.
The owner’s agent Gold Property Management Ltd (GPML) only became the landlord on 9 June 2022. Mr Christiansen gave evidence that the old caravan on site was not included in the tenancy agreement nor was it part of the management agreement between the owner and her agent.
Generally, an agent is not liable in law for the actions of its principle. So, GPML is not liable for any alleged breaches by the owner who was the landlord when the tenancy started.
The tenants’ claims in relation to the caravan and the sleepout date to the commencement of the tenancy. If the sleepout was unlawful then, the claim must be made against the landlord at the time – the owner.
The tenants can pursue a claim against the owner of the premises for breaches that they allege occurred at the start of the tenancy, but not against GPML.
I have therefore dismissed the tenants’ application against GPML.
On the landlord’s successful application I have reimbursed the Tribunal filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.
The tenants sought name suppression. They are not entitled to a name suppression order because their application is unsuccessful, and they accepted most of the landlord’s claims – see section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4631549 — Cleanliness at 179 Palmers Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4631549 — Cleanliness at 179 Palmers Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions