What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4703289 about?

The tribunal order states: Malae Muliumu must pay [The landlord/s] $3,564.69 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4703289?

Cleaning: $396.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Door Jamb: $747.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4703289?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4703289?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10046795-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4703289 about?

The tribunal order states: Malae Muliumu must pay [The landlord/s] $3,564.69 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4703289?

Cleaning: $396.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord; Door Jamb: $747.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4703289?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4703289?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10046795-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19 Barrys Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4703289 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4703289 — net $3,564.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 September 2023	$2,400.00	Rent arrears to 25 September 2023
Carpet Cleaning	$396.75	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Door jamb	$747.50	Repairs: Door jamb
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,564.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,564.69

Order

Malae Muliumu must pay [The landlord/s] $3,564.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $2,400.00.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord applied for costs relating to: a. Door jamb, b. Carpet, c. Lawn maintenance, d. Deep clean, e. Bin hire, f. Carpet shampoo, g. Dog waste.
The landlord’s evidence consisted of photographs, oral evidence and a “receipt” which I consider to be a schedule of costs provided by a maintenance company. The reason that I consider this to be a schedule of costs is that it is made up of several amounts (such as bin hire) that would have been the subject of a separate “primary” invoice.
The landlord’s photographs of the property show personal belongings, including some precious items throughout the house. The landlord stated he and his staff took the photos on 25 September 2023 when the tenants were evicted, and after the photographs were taken, he and his staff moved the tenant’s belongings outside.
The tenant disputed this and said the photographs were taken on 31 August 2023 during an inspection they were not present for.
The tenant stated that they moved all their belongings out prior to 25 September 2023, and on that day they returned to drop off the keys.
The tenant showed a video date-stamped 22 September 2023 that showed the property to be empty and clean. The landlord accepted it was the same property, but said it wasn’t how they found the property on 25 September 2023.
Towards the end of the hearing, the landlord received a text from a Bailiff sent in response to an inquiry the landlord made during the hearing which read: “I remember your tenant has already vacate the property before we get there. So just hand over possession to you 1.10pm.”
The landlord’s evidence concerning how the property was left is not consistent with the tenant’s evidence concerning how the property was left.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence on this point for the following reasons: a. Given the tenant had been given a date to vacate by, I believe it would be unlikely the tenant would make no effort to gather up personal and precious belongings before the day and time the Bailiff was due to take possession of the property. b. The landlord provided no photographs of the tenant’s belonging bagged and outside the property. c. The date-stamped video shown by the tenant is highly persuasive. d. The Bailiff’s text is more consistent with the tenant’s evidence than the landlord’s evidence.
Implicit in this finding is the conclusion that I must treat the landlord’s evidence with some caution. Door jamb
The landlord provided photographs and oral evidence that the tenant had intentionally damaged the front door jamb. The tenant did not dispute the evidence. The amount ordered is proved. Carpet repair
The landlord provided a photograph showing a small hole to the carpet. The tenant stated that the carpet was in poor condition due to a leak in that area, and that the hole was the result of normal movement of furniture. The landlord provided an amount for carpet repair on the schedule of costs, but did not provide a specific receipt for the repair, nor a photograph of the work having been done. This claim is not proved. Lawn maintenance
The landlord provided one photograph showing a window, a skip bin and a small area of yard. The landlord also provided an amount for lawn maintenance on the schedule of costs. The information supplied was insufficient to establish the condition of the lawn area at the end of the tenancy, or the work that was done. This claim is not proved. Deep clean
The landlord provided an amount for deep clean on the schedule of costs. The only photographs regarding the condition of the property produced by the landlord were the photographs that I find were probably taken on 31 August 2023. As such there is insufficient evidence to establish the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. This claim is not proved. Bin hire
The landlord provided an amount for bin hire on the schedule of costs. The information supporting this cost was the landlord’s oral evidence of the belongings the tenant left behind. I have found this evidence unreliable. No primary receipt specific to the bin hire was produced. This claim is not proved. Carpet shampoo
The landlord provided two amounts for carpet shampoo on the schedule of costs. No primary receipt specific to carpet shampoo was provided by the landlord. The tenant stated that the carpet had been left in overall good condition but conceded their pet dog had defecated on the carpet. As such I find this claim sufficiently proved to make a partial award. The amount ordered is proved. Dog waste
The landlord provided an amount for picking up dog waste on the schedule of costs. The tenant provided a video that showed no dog waste was left behind. An amount has been ordered for carpet cleaning. This claim is not proved.
Because the landlord has been substantially successful in their application, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4703289 — net $3,564.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 September 2023	$2,400.00	Rent arrears to 25 September 2023
Carpet Cleaning	$396.75	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Door jamb	$747.50	Repairs: Door jamb
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,564.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,564.69

Order

Malae Muliumu must pay [The landlord/s] $3,564.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $2,400.00.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord applied for costs relating to: a. Door jamb, b. Carpet, c. Lawn maintenance, d. Deep clean, e. Bin hire, f. Carpet shampoo, g. Dog waste.
The landlord’s evidence consisted of photographs, oral evidence and a “receipt” which I consider to be a schedule of costs provided by a maintenance company. The reason that I consider this to be a schedule of costs is that it is made up of several amounts (such as bin hire) that would have been the subject of a separate “primary” invoice.
The landlord’s photographs of the property show personal belongings, including some precious items throughout the house. The landlord stated he and his staff took the photos on 25 September 2023 when the tenants were evicted, and after the photographs were taken, he and his staff moved the tenant’s belongings outside.
The tenant disputed this and said the photographs were taken on 31 August 2023 during an inspection they were not present for.
The tenant stated that they moved all their belongings out prior to 25 September 2023, and on that day they returned to drop off the keys.
The tenant showed a video date-stamped 22 September 2023 that showed the property to be empty and clean. The landlord accepted it was the same property, but said it wasn’t how they found the property on 25 September 2023.
Towards the end of the hearing, the landlord received a text from a Bailiff sent in response to an inquiry the landlord made during the hearing which read: “I remember your tenant has already vacate the property before we get there. So just hand over possession to you 1.10pm.”
The landlord’s evidence concerning how the property was left is not consistent with the tenant’s evidence concerning how the property was left.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence on this point for the following reasons: a. Given the tenant had been given a date to vacate by, I believe it would be unlikely the tenant would make no effort to gather up personal and precious belongings before the day and time the Bailiff was due to take possession of the property. b. The landlord provided no photographs of the tenant’s belonging bagged and outside the property. c. The date-stamped video shown by the tenant is highly persuasive. d. The Bailiff’s text is more consistent with the tenant’s evidence than the landlord’s evidence.
Implicit in this finding is the conclusion that I must treat the landlord’s evidence with some caution. Door jamb
The landlord provided photographs and oral evidence that the tenant had intentionally damaged the front door jamb. The tenant did not dispute the evidence. The amount ordered is proved. Carpet repair
The landlord provided a photograph showing a small hole to the carpet. The tenant stated that the carpet was in poor condition due to a leak in that area, and that the hole was the result of normal movement of furniture. The landlord provided an amount for carpet repair on the schedule of costs, but did not provide a specific receipt for the repair, nor a photograph of the work having been done. This claim is not proved. Lawn maintenance
The landlord provided one photograph showing a window, a skip bin and a small area of yard. The landlord also provided an amount for lawn maintenance on the schedule of costs. The information supplied was insufficient to establish the condition of the lawn area at the end of the tenancy, or the work that was done. This claim is not proved. Deep clean
The landlord provided an amount for deep clean on the schedule of costs. The only photographs regarding the condition of the property produced by the landlord were the photographs that I find were probably taken on 31 August 2023. As such there is insufficient evidence to establish the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. This claim is not proved. Bin hire
The landlord provided an amount for bin hire on the schedule of costs. The information supporting this cost was the landlord’s oral evidence of the belongings the tenant left behind. I have found this evidence unreliable. No primary receipt specific to the bin hire was produced. This claim is not proved. Carpet shampoo
The landlord provided two amounts for carpet shampoo on the schedule of costs. No primary receipt specific to carpet shampoo was provided by the landlord. The tenant stated that the carpet had been left in overall good condition but conceded their pet dog had defecated on the carpet. As such I find this claim sufficiently proved to make a partial award. The amount ordered is proved. Dog waste
The landlord provided an amount for picking up dog waste on the schedule of costs. The tenant provided a video that showed no dog waste was left behind. An amount has been ordered for carpet cleaning. This claim is not proved.
Because the landlord has been substantially successful in their application, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4703289 — Rent arrears at 19 Barrys Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4703289 — Rent arrears at 19 Barrys Road, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions