Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4728770 — Tenancy dispute at 10 Pearce Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011, Sleep Out
Decided 16 Jan 2024 · Published 16 Jan 2024 · Application 4728770
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Nathan/Madhu Tinney must pay [The tenant/s] $1,420.44 immediately, in accordance with the following table:
Reasons
- [The tenant/s] attended the hearing.
- Mr Tinney had made a previous application to attend by teleconference. However, as his request did not meet the Tribunal’s requirements for a teleconference, his application was declined. He therefore advised the Tribunal that he would not be attending the hearing. He was given an opportunity to provide a statement and any evidence he wished prior to the hearing. He did file a statement which has been taken into account.
- [The tenant/s] has applied for her bond to be returned. She explained that although she cleaned the sleepout, Mr Tinney was seeking compensation of approximately $900 from her for extra cleaning due to her vaping. She tried to work with them regarding this amount, but agreement could not be reached.
- Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Mr Tinney has not filed a cross application despite discussing the issue with Tenancy Services.
- Therefore, because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Mr Tinney is holding the bond and has not lodged it with the Bond Centre. Accordingly, he is to refund the bond to [The tenant/s] immediately.
- As [The tenant/s] was successful in her application, I must refund her application fee; see section 102(4)(a) of the RTA. On the same grounds I also approve her claim for suppression; see section 95A of the RTA.