How much money was awarded in case 4716052?

Cleaning: $645.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Oil Stains In Garage: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Latches: $78.51 awarded to landlord; Toilet Roll And Handles: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $426.68 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4716052?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4716052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9959426-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4716052?

Cleaning: $645.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Oil Stains In Garage: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Latches: $78.51 awarded to landlord; Toilet Roll And Handles: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $426.68 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4716052?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4716052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9959426-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

113E Featherston Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston Tenancy Tribunal Case 4716052 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4716052?

The tribunal order states: Samantha Nicole OSullivan must pay Michael Francis Oconnor, Elizabeth Joy

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4716052 — net $625.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$645.00	Cleaning
Replace smoke alarms	$90.00	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: latches	$78.51	Repairs: latches
Repairs: toilet roll and handles	$50.00	Repairs: toilet roll and handles
Repairs: walls	$426.68	Repairs: walls
Rubbish removal	$105.00	Rubbish removal
Removal of oil stains in garage	$210.00	Removal of oil stains in garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$625.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$625.63

Samantha Nicole OSullivan must pay Michael Francis Oconnor, Elizabeth Joy Oconnor And Pauline Angela Slako As Trustees For The Elizabeth Paula Family Trust $625.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (6130135-031) to Michael Francis Oconnor, Elizabeth Joy Oconnor And Pauline Angela Slako As Trustees For The Elizabeth Paula Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 23 July 2023.

The landlord’s claims were all in one invoice from The Residential Cleanup Crew. No address or contact details were provided.

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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant agreed that although she had commenced the cleaning it became too much for her as she had sick children. She did not remove all rubbish. She agreed that further cleaning was required, including the oven. The photographs showed that some areas needed a thorough cleaning.

The landlord claimed 11 hours cleaning at $45.00 an hour plus $150 for the oven. That totals $645 which is reasonable. The landlord said that the administration fee and travel in the invoice for all claims was for the cleaning. This seems excessive on top of a charge of $45 an hour and I have not ordered it.

Two smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claimed replacement costs of $45.00 each.

The tenant said that one of the alarms had been beeping and she had spoken to the landlord about it and he had said it would be replaced but when that did not happen, she bought a new one and then took it with her when she left the property. She had disposed of the old one. She knew nothing about a second missing alarm.

The landlord denied a conversation about the smoke alarm beeping. He said that the smoke alarms were ones without a battery and they were supposed to last 10 years.

It may have been reasonable for the tenant to replace an alarm and seek reimbursement. It is not reasonable to take the new alarm with her. The landlord must comply with regulations. I accept the landlord’s evidence that two alarms were missing and order $90.00 reimbursement.

The tenant accepted that some rubbish was left in the recycling bin and there was some oil. The landlord said that he needed to hire a trailer to transport that to the dump. The total amount of $105.00 for rubbish removal is reasonable. That amount is ordered.

The tenant also accepted that the landlord had needed to remove the oil stains in the garage. The landlord claimed $210 including hiring a water blaster, which the tenant did not dispute.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

The parties agreed that a hole in one wall was there at the start of the tenancy and so the tenant is not responsible for that.

The landlord has not yet had damage to the carport wall (which is not accepted by the tenant) repaired and so has not incurred a loss and that claim is dismissed.

The landlord claimed $426.68 for the remaining damage to the toilet wall, lounge wall and another bedroom. The damage to the toilet wall was caused by the toilet roll holder pulling away. The toilet roll holder itself was also damaged. The tenant said that it was fair wear and tear. I find it is more likely caused by unintentional damage and order the tenant to cover the cost of repair to the wall.

The tenant denied knowledge of holes in the bedroom wall and lounge wall. The landlord produced photographs taken on 24 July 2023 after the tenancy had ended. A property inspection at the end of the tenancy with both parties present had not been completed because the tenant was very stressed at the time and worried about her children.

I consider it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I therefore order $426.68 for repairs to the walls.

The tenant agreed that some window latches had been broken during the tenancy and agreed to reimburse the $78.51 for those.

The landlord claimed $71.98 for a replacement toilet roll holder and some handles. The tenan agreed that she is responsible for replacement of some handles, but disputes that she should have to replace the toilet roll holder, claiming fair wear and tear.

It is a minor expense, and it was not new at the time start of the tenancy. The landlord should expect some maintenance costs. I order $50.00 for the replacement handles and toilet roll holder.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Michael Francis Oconnor, Elizabeth Joy Oconnor And Pauline Angela Slako As Trustees For The Elizabeth Paula Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord is asked to provide receipts and invoices for individual items in future.

The tenant raised some complaints about her time during the tenancy. Those have not been considered because she had not made a cross-application. If she wishes to pursue those matters, she may wish to discuss with Tenancy Services, noting that the tenancy commenced before some of the Healthy Homes Standards were introduced, and may not apply to this tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4716052 — net $625.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$645.00	Cleaning
Replace smoke alarms	$90.00	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: latches	$78.51	Repairs: latches
Repairs: toilet roll and handles	$50.00	Repairs: toilet roll and handles
Repairs: walls	$426.68	Repairs: walls
Rubbish removal	$105.00	Rubbish removal
Removal of oil stains in garage	$210.00	Removal of oil stains in garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$625.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$625.63

Order

Samantha Nicole OSullivan must pay Michael Francis Oconnor, Elizabeth Joy Oconnor And Pauline Angela Slako As Trustees For The Elizabeth Paula Family Trust $625.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (6130135-031) to Michael Francis Oconnor, Elizabeth Joy Oconnor And Pauline Angela Slako As Trustees For The Elizabeth Paula Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 23 July 2023.
The landlord’s claims were all in one invoice from The Residential Cleanup Crew. No address or contact details were provided.

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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant agreed that although she had commenced the cleaning it became too much for her as she had sick children. She did not remove all rubbish. She agreed that further cleaning was required, including the oven. The photographs showed that some areas needed a thorough cleaning.
The landlord claimed 11 hours cleaning at $45.00 an hour plus $150 for the oven. That totals $645 which is reasonable. The landlord said that the administration fee and travel in the invoice for all claims was for the cleaning. This seems excessive on top of a charge of $45 an hour and I have not ordered it.
Two smoke alarms were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claimed replacement costs of $45.00 each.
The tenant said that one of the alarms had been beeping and she had spoken to the landlord about it and he had said it would be replaced but when that did not happen, she bought a new one and then took it with her when she left the property. She had disposed of the old one. She knew nothing about a second missing alarm.
The landlord denied a conversation about the smoke alarm beeping. He said that the smoke alarms were ones without a battery and they were supposed to last 10 years.
It may have been reasonable for the tenant to replace an alarm and seek reimbursement. It is not reasonable to take the new alarm with her. The landlord must comply with regulations. I accept the landlord’s evidence that two alarms were missing and order $90.00 reimbursement.
The tenant accepted that some rubbish was left in the recycling bin and there was some oil. The landlord said that he needed to hire a trailer to transport that to the dump. The total amount of $105.00 for rubbish removal is reasonable. That amount is ordered.
The tenant also accepted that the landlord had needed to remove the oil stains in the garage. The landlord claimed $210 including hiring a water blaster, which the tenant did not dispute.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The parties agreed that a hole in one wall was there at the start of the tenancy and so the tenant is not responsible for that.
The landlord has not yet had damage to the carport wall (which is not accepted by the tenant) repaired and so has not incurred a loss and that claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed $426.68 for the remaining damage to the toilet wall, lounge wall and another bedroom. The damage to the toilet wall was caused by the toilet roll holder pulling away. The toilet roll holder itself was also damaged. The tenant said that it was fair wear and tear. I find it is more likely caused by unintentional damage and order the tenant to cover the cost of repair to the wall.
The tenant denied knowledge of holes in the bedroom wall and lounge wall. The landlord produced photographs taken on 24 July 2023 after the tenancy had ended. A property inspection at the end of the tenancy with both parties present had not been completed because the tenant was very stressed at the time and worried about her children.
I consider it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I therefore order $426.68 for repairs to the walls.
The tenant agreed that some window latches had been broken during the tenancy and agreed to reimburse the $78.51 for those.
The landlord claimed $71.98 for a replacement toilet roll holder and some handles. The tenan agreed that she is responsible for replacement of some handles, but disputes that she should have to replace the toilet roll holder, claiming fair wear and tear.
It is a minor expense, and it was not new at the time start of the tenancy. The landlord should expect some maintenance costs. I order $50.00 for the replacement handles and toilet roll holder.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Michael Francis Oconnor, Elizabeth Joy Oconnor And Pauline Angela Slako As Trustees For The Elizabeth Paula Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord is asked to provide receipts and invoices for individual items in future.
The tenant raised some complaints about her time during the tenancy. Those have not been considered because she had not made a cross-application. If she wishes to pursue those matters, she may wish to discuss with Tenancy Services, noting that the tenancy commenced before some of the Healthy Homes Standards were introduced, and may not apply to this tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4716052 — Cleanliness at 113E Featherston Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4716052 — Cleanliness at 113E Featherston Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston

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