How much money was awarded in case 4670529?

Cleaning: $176.37 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Curtain: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Marks On Walls: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $324.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4670529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9594016-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4670529?

Cleaning: $176.37 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Curtain: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Marks On Walls: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $324.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4670529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4670529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9594016-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

196 Hokianga Road, Dargaville, Dargaville 0310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4670529 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4670529 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4670529 — net $996.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$25.00	the claim for $220.00 is not proven. I will award $100.00.
Compensation: marks on walls	$300.00	marks on walls
Water rates	$324.87	Water rates
Compensation: washing line repairs	$100.00	washing line repairs
Compensation: curtain	$50.00	curtain
Carpet Cleaning	$176.37	the claim for $220.00 is not proven. I will award $100.00.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	36. The landlord has been largely successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44 2 .
Net award	$996.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$996.68

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 North Island Community Services Limited t/as Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for Martin Tutty & Alison Lindsay) $996.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 24 July 2023.

The landlord’s application seeks water rates, cleaning, and repair costs.

The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 1 November 2023. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Skinner represented the landlords. Agreed / withdrawn at hearing

Ms Skinner withdrew the claim for replacement of lightbulbs.

[Tenant 1] accepted the claim for water rates.

Ms Skinner and [Tenant 1] agreed that [Tenant 1] would pay half of the cleaning costs claimed ($25) and would pay $50 for replacement of a curtain. Marks on walls

The claim seeks compensation of $300.00 for marks on walls.

Ms Skinner submitted that there were multiple marks on walls, including a dark horizontal ‘scuff’ on the bedroom wall, and various other marks chips and dents in the dining room, hallway, and bedrooms.

The property had been freshly painted before the start of this tenancy, but [Tenant 1] submitted that it was only painted with one coat and that there was minimal preparation work. [Tenant 1] submitted that she knows the painters who did the job. [Tenant 1] submitted that the paint chipped and flaked easily, and that existing dents were simply painted over.

Ms Skinner provided photographs from the end of the tenancy. She also provided a video recording of an inspection that she carried out in March.

Ms Skinner submitted that the owners were quoted over a thousand dollars to ‘touch up’ the damaged areas.

I accept [Tenant 1]’s argument that some minor marks on walls is within the scope of normal fair wear and tear.

However, I am satisfied that the end of tenancy photographs and the inspection video show multiple instances of damage. The extent of damage is beyond fair wear and tear. Some of the damage appears to be flaking / chipped paint rather than impact (such as on a windowsill), but most of the damage is impact damage.

The amount of $300.00 is a reasonable and conservative award of compensation.

This part of the claim is proven. Glass pane in back door

In the latter stages of the tenancy [Tenant 1] arranged and paid for re-glazing of two glass panes, including one in the back door. The pane had shattered when the door slammed in the wind.

[Tenant 1] submitted that a hairline crack appeared in the new pane shortly after it was installed, and the crack grew in the last weeks of the tenancy.

Tenants are liable for damage that they carelessly or intentionally cause.

The nature of this damage, and the fact that it occurred shortly after the pane was fitted, indicates that it could be an issue with the way that the pane was installed, or the type of pane that was used.

It is not proven that this is damage caused by some careless or intentional action by the tenant.

This part of the claim is dismissed. Clothesline

The claim seeks $220.00 for re-stringing the clothesline

It is not disputed that: a. The clothesline was in need of repairs when the tenancy began. The frame was damaged, and the lines were loose. b. Propertyscouts arranged for repairs to the clothesline early in the tenancy.

The dispute is about whether the lines were repaired at that time or only the frame.

[Tenant 1] submitted that the repairer only fixed the frame and the lines remained loose for the duration of her tenancy. She submitted that they were able to ‘get by’ using the loose lines, but she did not damage them.

[Tenant 1] also questioned the repair cost claimed by the landlord. When Propertyscouts first raised this issue they advised [Tenant 1] that the repair cost would be $62.00. This figure is mentioned in a previous Tenancy Tribunal order between these parties 1 . The amount claimed is now $220.00.

Ms Skinner submitted that the repairer fixed the frame and the lines. Ms Skinner submitted that she has carried out several inspections during the tenancy (after the repair) and the clothesline was in good working order. Ms Skinner provided two photographs of the clothesline from her January 2023 inspection by way of example. 1 North Island Community Services Ltd v [The respondent/s] [2023] NZTT 4552732, 4589290, at para 6

The January 2023 photographs do show the clothesline in apparent good working order. In the video of the March 2023 inspection the clothesline is obviously damaged.

On this evidence I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the lines were repaired (tightened or replaced) early in the tenancy and that the lines have been damaged after that repair. Therefore, I find that [Tenant 1] is liable for the reasonable and proven cost of repair.

I agree with [Tenant 1]’s concerns about the repair cost. The evidence in support of the ‘new’ cost is a quote from [Property maintenance company] dated 18 August 2023. The quote simply gives a price, without a breakdown of materials, labour, and travel.

No explanation was provided as to why the cost is nearly four times what was initially indicated to [Tenant 1]. Costs can change for a variety of reasons, but an increase of this magnitude requires justification.

It is appropriate to make an award of compensation, but the claim for $220.00 is not proven. I will award $100.00. Carpet cleaning

There was an existing stain on the carpet in the lounge at the beginning of the tenancy.

Ms Skinner’s photographs and video show that several more stains occurred during this tenancy. [Tenant 1] essentially did not dispute this.

The stains meant that the carpet was not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy and the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning is justified. The cleaning cost claimed is proven, and is reasonable for the size of the house. Filing fee, name suppression

The landlord has been largely successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44 2 .

[Tenant 1] sought name suppression.

The Tribunal must grant name suppression (upon application) to any party that has “substantially succeeded” in the proceedings. The Tribunal also has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regards to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 3 .

[Tenant 1] has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings. 2 Section 104(2)(a) RTA 3 Section 95A RTA

In a previous proceeding, I granted name suppression to [Tenant 1] on the grounds that [Tenant 1] did not dispute parts of the landlord’s application, that she raised genuine concerns in respect of the issues that she did dispute (and has been successful to some extent), and that publication of her name “would be unjustly detrimental to her interests”.

Similar considerations apply in this instance, and I will grant name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4670529 — net $996.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$25.00	the claim for $220.00 is not proven. I will award $100.00.
Compensation: marks on walls	$300.00	marks on walls
Water rates	$324.87	Water rates
Compensation: washing line repairs	$100.00	washing line repairs
Compensation: curtain	$50.00	curtain
Carpet Cleaning	$176.37	the claim for $220.00 is not proven. I will award $100.00.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	36. The landlord has been largely successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44 2 .
Net award	$996.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$996.68

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 North Island Community Services Limited t/as Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for Martin Tutty & Alison Lindsay) $996.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 24 July 2023.

The landlord’s application seeks water rates, cleaning, and repair costs.

The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 1 November 2023. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Skinner represented the landlords. Agreed / withdrawn at hearing

Ms Skinner withdrew the claim for replacement of lightbulbs.

[Tenant 1] accepted the claim for water rates.

Ms Skinner and [Tenant 1] agreed that [Tenant 1] would pay half of the cleaning costs claimed ($25) and would pay $50 for replacement of a curtain. Marks on walls

The claim seeks compensation of $300.00 for marks on walls.

Ms Skinner provided photographs from the end of the tenancy. She also provided a video recording of an inspection that she carried out in March.

Ms Skinner submitted that the owners were quoted over a thousand dollars to ‘touch up’ the damaged areas.

I accept [Tenant 1]’s argument that some minor marks on walls is within the scope of normal fair wear and tear.

The amount of $300.00 is a reasonable and conservative award of compensation.

This part of the claim is proven. Glass pane in back door

In the latter stages of the tenancy [Tenant 1] arranged and paid for re-glazing of two glass panes, including one in the back door. The pane had shattered when the door slammed in the wind.

[Tenant 1] submitted that a hairline crack appeared in the new pane shortly after it was installed, and the crack grew in the last weeks of the tenancy.

Tenants are liable for damage that they carelessly or intentionally cause.

It is not proven that this is damage caused by some careless or intentional action by the tenant.

This part of the claim is dismissed. Clothesline

The claim seeks $220.00 for re-stringing the clothesline

The dispute is about whether the lines were repaired at that time or only the frame.

The January 2023 photographs do show the clothesline in apparent good working order. In the video of the March 2023 inspection the clothesline is obviously damaged.

It is appropriate to make an award of compensation, but the claim for $220.00 is not proven. I will award $100.00. Carpet cleaning

There was an existing stain on the carpet in the lounge at the beginning of the tenancy.

Ms Skinner’s photographs and video show that several more stains occurred during this tenancy. [Tenant 1] essentially did not dispute this.

The landlord has been largely successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44 2 .

[Tenant 1] sought name suppression.

[Tenant 1] has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings. 2 Section 104(2)(a) RTA 3 Section 95A RTA

Similar considerations apply in this instance, and I will grant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670529 — Cleanliness at 196 Hokianga Road, Dargaville, Dargaville 0310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4670529 — Cleanliness at 196 Hokianga Road, Dargaville, Dargaville 0310

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