How much money was awarded in case 4653829?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $181.13 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $192.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4653829?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4653829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9543259-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4653829?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $181.13 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $192.05 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $210.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4653829?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4653829?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9543259-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Charleston Avenue, Boulcott, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4653829 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4653829?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made by the applicant in this case.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4653829 — net $1,153.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Heated towel rail repair	$192.05	Repairs: Heated towel rail repair
Repairs: Glass repairs	$181.13	Repairs: Glass repairs
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$210.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,153.62
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,153.62

An application for suppression has been made by the applicant in this case. The Tribunal declines to order suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Terena Whati is to pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $1,153.62 from the bond.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (3833877-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentcare Property Management Limited: $1,153.62 Terena Whati: $1,766.38

The amount to pay is calculated as follows:

Reasons

The landlord appeared. Terena Whati did not appear.

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

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord has claimed that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The claim includes: a. The landlord claimed that there was a sticky film over surfaces. The landlord was unable to provide evidence of the extent and type of sticky surfaces. The amount ordered is less than claimed by the landlord for two reasons. There was insufficient evidence of the extent of cleaning needed. The claim for 11 hours of cleaning is more than it takes to clean a whole house. This cleaning was only to sticky surfaces. In addition the cleaning rate of $112.13/hour including Gst is inconsistent with commercial cleaning rates that are normally seen in the Tribunal. $300.00 is allowed for cleaning. b. The landlord claimed that the carpet in the whole house needed to be professionally cleaned. The landlord did provide photos of the premises at the end of the tenancy, but that evidence did not show the condition of the carpet or the need for all of the carpet in the house to be cleaned. It is the applicant’s burden to prove any claim the applicant makes. Because a commercial cleaner confirmed stains were present in the carpet, I have allowed for stain removal costs and time for general carpet cleaning in those areas but not for cleaning carpet in the whole house. c. The landlord claimed that the tenant left rubbish in the garage and in the house. The landlord’s photos at the end of the tenancy show the garage entrance but do not show the rubbish either by volume or in detail. Photos show some items left in the premises. Landlords wanting compensation usually provide photos where rubbish can be clearly seen. I have reduced the amount ordered from the amount claimed because of the lack of evidence and because the rate of $112.13/hour charged for rubbish is inconsistent rates that are normally seen in the Tribunal.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a towel rail was removed from the wall and a window was broken. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Filing Fee

Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression

The landlord applied for name suppression. Suppression is granted where a party is substantially or wholly successful in proceedings. The landlord claimed losses of $2,630.97. The Tribunal has made an order for $1,153.62. Because the landlord has not substantially succeeded in proceedings, the landlord’s request for name suppression is declined. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4653829 — net $1,153.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Heated towel rail repair	$192.05	Repairs: Heated towel rail repair
Repairs: Glass repairs	$181.13	Repairs: Glass repairs
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$210.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,153.62
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,153.62

Order

An application for suppression has been made by the applicant in this case. The Tribunal declines to order suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Terena Whati is to pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $1,153.62 from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (3833877-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentcare Property Management Limited: $1,153.62 Terena Whati: $1,766.38
The amount to pay is calculated as follows:

Reasons

The landlord appeared. Terena Whati did not appear.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has claimed that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The claim includes: a. The landlord claimed that there was a sticky film over surfaces. The landlord was unable to provide evidence of the extent and type of sticky surfaces. The amount ordered is less than claimed by the landlord for two reasons. There was insufficient evidence of the extent of cleaning needed. The claim for 11 hours of cleaning is more than it takes to clean a whole house. This cleaning was only to sticky surfaces. In addition the cleaning rate of $112.13/hour including Gst is inconsistent with commercial cleaning rates that are normally seen in the Tribunal. $300.00 is allowed for cleaning. b. The landlord claimed that the carpet in the whole house needed to be professionally cleaned. The landlord did provide photos of the premises at the end of the tenancy, but that evidence did not show the condition of the carpet or the need for all of the carpet in the house to be cleaned. It is the applicant’s burden to prove any claim the applicant makes. Because a commercial cleaner confirmed stains were present in the carpet, I have allowed for stain removal costs and time for general carpet cleaning in those areas but not for cleaning carpet in the whole house. c. The landlord claimed that the tenant left rubbish in the garage and in the house. The landlord’s photos at the end of the tenancy show the garage entrance but do not show the rubbish either by volume or in detail. Photos show some items left in the premises. Landlords wanting compensation usually provide photos where rubbish can be clearly seen. I have reduced the amount ordered from the amount claimed because of the lack of evidence and because the rate of $112.13/hour charged for rubbish is inconsistent rates that are normally seen in the Tribunal.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a towel rail was removed from the wall and a window was broken. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression
The landlord applied for name suppression. Suppression is granted where a party is substantially or wholly successful in proceedings. The landlord claimed losses of $2,630.97. The Tribunal has made an order for $1,153.62. Because the landlord has not substantially succeeded in proceedings, the landlord’s request for name suppression is declined. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4653829 — Cleanliness at 11 Charleston Avenue, Boulcott, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4653829 — Cleanliness at 11 Charleston Avenue, Boulcott, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions