What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4639129?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4639129?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $989.29 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Chattel: $407.40 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639129?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9292003-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4639129?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4639129?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $225.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $989.29 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Chattel: $407.40 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639129?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9292003-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 20 Lorne Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4639129 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639129 — net $2,441.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 July 2023	$989.29	Rent arrears to 21 July 2023
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$150.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: keys	$225.00	Lock/key replacement: keys
Lock/key replacement: gate remote	$149.50	Lock/key replacement: gate remote
replace missing chattel	$407.40	replace missing chattel
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,441.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,441.63

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Te Temepara Hou Kiamaia Ronaki must pay Baseden Property Management Limited as Agent for Sanmar Investments Ltd $2,441.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Baseden Property Management Limited as Agent for Sanmar Investments Ltd must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

Mr Baseden appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant. Earlier today the Registrar received a request from the tenant for an adjournment. However, no evidence has been produced to support the request, and therefore, it is declined.
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 onus of proving these claims will rest with the landlord. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not the tenant has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement, or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). How much is owed for rent
The tenancy commenced on 24 July 2022 and ended on 21 July 2023. On 05 July 2023, the bond of $1,700.00 was released to the landlord, and attributed to the rent outstanding at that time. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the balance of rent arrears owed at the end of the tenancy.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return the keys and a remote to a gate, and is liable for a missing chattel, namely a clothes dryer.
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) of the Act.
The property consists of two bedrooms, lounge / dining room, kitchen, and bathroom / toilet. The landlord has produced both a pre tenancy inspection report and one completed at the end of the tenancy. However, each report contains only very small photographs. Additionally, the landlord has produced larger, clearer photographs showing the kitchen, and an area of floor in one of the bedrooms.
Whether or not the tenant has left the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition will involve an objective assessment. It is what the reasonable bystander looking through the window, in this case the Tribunal, considers reasonably clean. The two invoices produced are for $267.00 and $377.20, a total of $653.20. While I am satisfied that the kitchen has not been left reasonably clean and tidy, the invoices include cleaning other areas of the property for which there is no photographic evidence. Mr Baseden suggests the Tribunal award the full amount claimed asserting that the evidence of the kitchen reflects the overall condition of the property. The landlord also submits that the cleaners, engaged by the landlord, would not have included unnecessary cleaning costs. The landlords and cleaners view are subjective. In these cases, an objective assessment is ideally conducted using photographic evidence. The oral evidence of witnesses and invoices has less weight. Based on the evidence I am not satisfied that an award of the full amount claimed is justified. I award the landlord $500.00 for cleaning.
The pre tenancy checklist shows that the tenant was provided with keys and a remote-control unit to a gate. Mr Baseden states that these were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $225.00 to re barrel the locks, and cut new keys, and $149.00 to replace and recode a remote. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to return the keys and remote. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full.
The property included a clothes dryer located in a kitchen cupboard. Mr Baseden states that the clothes dryer has been removed. The landlord has produced a photograph showing the cupboard concerned empty at the end of the tenancy. Tenants are responsible for ensuring that all chattels are returned. The landlord has produced a quote to replace the dryer for $529.00 with a delivery and installation charge of $90.00. When awarding compensation, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. Calculating depreciation involves considering the age and condition of items at the start of the tenancy and their expected lifespan. Clothes dryers in rental properties have an expected lifespan of around 7 years. While the exact age of the dryer at the commencement of the tenancy is unknown, Mr Baseden states that it was in reasonable condition and working order. Mr Baseden suggests the Tribunal consider 50% for depreciation but award the full delivery and installation costs of $90.00. Considering betterment and depreciation I reduce the amount claimed for replacing the dryer by 40%. The delivery and installation cost of $90.00 is awarded in full. The total award is $407.40.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord states the items concerned are visible in photographs of the kitchen, including an oven tray, an oven dish, some kitchen knives, fry pan, and Tupperware containers. A cupboard above the sink contains dry food items, including condiments. Outside, there are two towels on the ground along with several doormats. I also note that the yellow recycling bin contains a large bag of rubbish, and that the glass recycling bin is full.
The landlord has given the tenant the opportunity to remove these items, which have been kept in a box at the property.
The value of the goods, if any, shown in the photographs is below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them. Accordingly, the landlord may dispose of the goods as they see fit. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B (2) and (3) of the Act.
I also award the landlord $150.00 for rubbish removal. Costs
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639129 — net $2,441.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 July 2023	$989.29	Rent arrears to 21 July 2023
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$150.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: keys	$225.00	Lock/key replacement: keys
Lock/key replacement: gate remote	$149.50	Lock/key replacement: gate remote
replace missing chattel	$407.40	replace missing chattel
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,441.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,441.63

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Te Temepara Hou Kiamaia Ronaki must pay Baseden Property Management Limited as Agent for Sanmar Investments Ltd $2,441.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Baseden Property Management Limited as Agent for Sanmar Investments Ltd must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the premises to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit.

Reasons

Mr Baseden appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant. Earlier today the Registrar received a request from the tenant for an adjournment. However, no evidence has been produced to support the request, and therefore, it is declined.
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 onus of proving these claims will rest with the landlord. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not the tenant has breached the terms of the tenancy agreement, or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). How much is owed for rent
The tenancy commenced on 24 July 2022 and ended on 21 July 2023. On 05 July 2023, the bond of $1,700.00 was released to the landlord, and attributed to the rent outstanding at that time. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the balance of rent arrears owed at the end of the tenancy.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return the keys and a remote to a gate, and is liable for a missing chattel, namely a clothes dryer.
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) of the Act.
The property consists of two bedrooms, lounge / dining room, kitchen, and bathroom / toilet. The landlord has produced both a pre tenancy inspection report and one completed at the end of the tenancy. However, each report contains only very small photographs. Additionally, the landlord has produced larger, clearer photographs showing the kitchen, and an area of floor in one of the bedrooms.
Whether or not the tenant has left the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition will involve an objective assessment. It is what the reasonable bystander looking through the window, in this case the Tribunal, considers reasonably clean. The two invoices produced are for $267.00 and $377.20, a total of $653.20. While I am satisfied that the kitchen has not been left reasonably clean and tidy, the invoices include cleaning other areas of the property for which there is no photographic evidence. Mr Baseden suggests the Tribunal award the full amount claimed asserting that the evidence of the kitchen reflects the overall condition of the property. The landlord also submits that the cleaners, engaged by the landlord, would not have included unnecessary cleaning costs. The landlords and cleaners view are subjective. In these cases, an objective assessment is ideally conducted using photographic evidence. The oral evidence of witnesses and invoices has less weight. Based on the evidence I am not satisfied that an award of the full amount claimed is justified. I award the landlord $500.00 for cleaning.
The pre tenancy checklist shows that the tenant was provided with keys and a remote-control unit to a gate. Mr Baseden states that these were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $225.00 to re barrel the locks, and cut new keys, and $149.00 to replace and recode a remote. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to return the keys and remote. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full.
The property included a clothes dryer located in a kitchen cupboard. Mr Baseden states that the clothes dryer has been removed. The landlord has produced a photograph showing the cupboard concerned empty at the end of the tenancy. Tenants are responsible for ensuring that all chattels are returned. The landlord has produced a quote to replace the dryer for $529.00 with a delivery and installation charge of $90.00. When awarding compensation, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. Calculating depreciation involves considering the age and condition of items at the start of the tenancy and their expected lifespan. Clothes dryers in rental properties have an expected lifespan of around 7 years. While the exact age of the dryer at the commencement of the tenancy is unknown, Mr Baseden states that it was in reasonable condition and working order. Mr Baseden suggests the Tribunal consider 50% for depreciation but award the full delivery and installation costs of $90.00. Considering betterment and depreciation I reduce the amount claimed for replacing the dryer by 40%. The delivery and installation cost of $90.00 is awarded in full. The total award is $407.40.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord states the items concerned are visible in photographs of the kitchen, including an oven tray, an oven dish, some kitchen knives, fry pan, and Tupperware containers. A cupboard above the sink contains dry food items, including condiments. Outside, there are two towels on the ground along with several doormats. I also note that the yellow recycling bin contains a large bag of rubbish, and that the glass recycling bin is full.
The landlord has given the tenant the opportunity to remove these items, which have been kept in a box at the property.
The value of the goods, if any, shown in the photographs is below the cost of storing, transporting, and selling them. Accordingly, the landlord may dispose of the goods as they see fit. See sections 62(3)(b), 62B (2) and (3) of the Act.
I also award the landlord $150.00 for rubbish removal. Costs
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639129 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 20 Lorne Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639129 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 20 Lorne Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions