How much money was awarded in case 4636029?

Cleaning: $786.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting: $633.33 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $175.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $255.16 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $149.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4636029?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4636029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9523050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4636029?

Cleaning: $786.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting: $633.33 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $175.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $255.16 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $149.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4636029?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4636029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9523050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4636029 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4636029 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4636029 — net $301.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$255.16	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$786.80	Cleaning
Lightbulbs, smoke alarms etc	$149.80	Lightbulbs, smoke alarms etc
Window repairs	$175.75	Window repairs
Painting	$633.33	Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$301.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$301.28

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Peter Edward Kitchen and Sheryl Elizabeth Kitchen $301.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Peter Edward Kitchen and Sheryl Elizabeth Kitchen immediately.

Reasons

The tenancy ended on 20 April 2023.

The landlords’ application seeks cleaning and rubbish removal costs, and repairs.

The hearing took place on 6 October 2023. Both parties attended the hearing by phone.

[The tenant/s] accepted the claims for cleaning and rubbish removal. [The tenant/s] accepted the claim for re-glazing the window in the bedroom, but she disputed the claim for re-glazing glass panes in the back door. [The tenant/s] accepted the claim for painting the lounge ceiling and the small bedroom, but she disputed the claim for painting a wall in the main bedroom.

In any claim for damage, the landlord must prove (to the standard of ‘more likely than not’) that damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear 1 .

Mr & Mrs Kitchen submitted that at the end of the tenancy they discovered a pink / red stain on the wall of the main bedroom. [The tenant/s] submitted that she was not aware of any such stain.

Mr & Mrs Kitchen submitted that the glass panes in the back door were cracked. They noted that during the tenancy there was an incident where the back door slammed and one of the panes smashed. They shared the cost of re-glazing that smashed pane with [the tenant/s]. Mr & Mrs Kitchen submitted that the other panes may have cracked in that incident, although the damage was not noted at that time. [The tenant/s] submitted that she was not aware of any cracks in the back door panes.

The only evidence available to me in respect of both of these issues is the conflicting oral evidence of the landlords and the tenant. I was not provided with any photographs.

My finding is that the landlords have not met the burden of proof in respect of these parts of their claim.

The landlords sought $950.00 for painting the small bedroom, the lounge ceiling, and the main bedroom wall. In the absence of any evidential basis for accurately calculating the tenant’s liability for the small bedroom and lounge ceiling only, I will award two-thirds of the amount claimed.

The claim for re-glazing is $456.42 per an invoice from [Glass Company]. The invoice is for one pane of clear glass (which I assume is for the bedroom) and two pains of stippled glass (which I assume is for the door). I will award the cost of the clear glass, and one-third of the amounts charged for labour etc. The total is $175.75. 1 Section 49B(8)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

The landlord has been largely successful in this application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.

The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.

Name suppression is granted to the tenant on the grounds of safety considerations relating to the circumstances in which she withdrew from the tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4636029 — net $301.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$255.16	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$786.80	Cleaning
Lightbulbs, smoke alarms etc	$149.80	Lightbulbs, smoke alarms etc
Window repairs	$175.75	Window repairs
Painting	$633.33	Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$301.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$301.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Peter Edward Kitchen and Sheryl Elizabeth Kitchen $301.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Peter Edward Kitchen and Sheryl Elizabeth Kitchen immediately.

Reasons

The tenancy ended on 20 April 2023.
The landlords’ application seeks cleaning and rubbish removal costs, and repairs.
The hearing took place on 6 October 2023. Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
[The tenant/s] accepted the claims for cleaning and rubbish removal. [The tenant/s] accepted the claim for re-glazing the window in the bedroom, but she disputed the claim for re-glazing glass panes in the back door. [The tenant/s] accepted the claim for painting the lounge ceiling and the small bedroom, but she disputed the claim for painting a wall in the main bedroom.
In any claim for damage, the landlord must prove (to the standard of ‘more likely than not’) that damage occurred during the tenancy and that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear 1 .
Mr & Mrs Kitchen submitted that at the end of the tenancy they discovered a pink / red stain on the wall of the main bedroom. [The tenant/s] submitted that she was not aware of any such stain.
Mr & Mrs Kitchen submitted that the glass panes in the back door were cracked. They noted that during the tenancy there was an incident where the back door slammed and one of the panes smashed. They shared the cost of re-glazing that smashed pane with [the tenant/s]. Mr & Mrs Kitchen submitted that the other panes may have cracked in that incident, although the damage was not noted at that time. [The tenant/s] submitted that she was not aware of any cracks in the back door panes.
The only evidence available to me in respect of both of these issues is the conflicting oral evidence of the landlords and the tenant. I was not provided with any photographs.
My finding is that the landlords have not met the burden of proof in respect of these parts of their claim.
The landlords sought $950.00 for painting the small bedroom, the lounge ceiling, and the main bedroom wall. In the absence of any evidential basis for accurately calculating the tenant’s liability for the small bedroom and lounge ceiling only, I will award two-thirds of the amount claimed.
The claim for re-glazing is $456.42 per an invoice from [Glass Company]. The invoice is for one pane of clear glass (which I assume is for the bedroom) and two pains of stippled glass (which I assume is for the door). I will award the cost of the clear glass, and one-third of the amounts charged for labour etc. The total is $175.75. 1 Section 49B(8)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The landlord has been largely successful in this application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.
Name suppression is granted to the tenant on the grounds of safety considerations relating to the circumstances in which she withdrew from the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4636029 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4636029 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions