What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4712369 about?

The tribunal order states: Janet May Gayler to pay [The landlord/s] $883.44 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4712369?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $613.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712369?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10181758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4712369 about?

The tribunal order states: Janet May Gayler to pay [The landlord/s] $883.44 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4712369?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $613.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4712369?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4712369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10181758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4712369 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4712369 — net $883.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Guttering: Insurance excess	$250.00	Repairs: Guttering: Insurance excess
Rubbish removal: 2/3 of combined cleaning/removal invoice	$613.00	Rubbish removal: 2/3 of combined cleaning/removal invoice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$883.44
Bond	$1,002.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$883.44

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a continuation. The first hearing awarded the landlord rent arrears from the bond.

The landlord now applies for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

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 produced exit photos and sought compensation based on an invoice for $920.00 – a combined cleaning and rubbish/content removal task with no separate accounting.

The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

Having consider the evidence and submissions, I consider the tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The small areas missed would be easily remedied.

The tenant did not remove all rubbish or contents. This was not disputed by the tenant. Photos allowed an estimate of effort and cost to be apportioned from the one invoiced cost. I have settled on a 2/3 rd amount; being $613.00. This is awarded as compensation for the removal costs incurred.

The tenant did not return the garage door remote. She has since found it and promised to return it immediately to the landlord. This is acceptable to the landlord if sent immediately.

The amounts ordered are proved. Damage

A section of guttering was damaged by the removal truck when backing up to the house. The tenant acknowledged responsibility. The landlord confirmed an insurance claim had been accepted and an excess incurred of $250.00. This is awarded. Application filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4712369 — net $883.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Guttering: Insurance excess	$250.00	Repairs: Guttering: Insurance excess
Rubbish removal: 2/3 of combined cleaning/removal invoice	$613.00	Rubbish removal: 2/3 of combined cleaning/removal invoice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$883.44
Bond	$1,002.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$883.44

Order

Janet May Gayler to pay [The landlord/s] $883.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,002.85 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $883.44 Janet May Gayler: $119.41

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a continuation. The first hearing awarded the landlord rent arrears from the bond.
The landlord now applies for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

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 produced exit photos and sought compensation based on an invoice for $920.00 – a combined cleaning and rubbish/content removal task with no separate accounting.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
Having consider the evidence and submissions, I consider the tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The small areas missed would be easily remedied.
The tenant did not remove all rubbish or contents. This was not disputed by the tenant. Photos allowed an estimate of effort and cost to be apportioned from the one invoiced cost. I have settled on a 2/3 rd amount; being $613.00. This is awarded as compensation for the removal costs incurred.
The tenant did not return the garage door remote. She has since found it and promised to return it immediately to the landlord. This is acceptable to the landlord if sent immediately.
The amounts ordered are proved. Damage
A section of guttering was damaged by the removal truck when backing up to the house. The tenant acknowledged responsibility. The landlord confirmed an insurance claim had been accepted and an excess incurred of $250.00. This is awarded. Application filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4712369 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4712369 — Property damage

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

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

Frequently asked questions