What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4740269?

The tribunal order states: Thomas Hendrikz, Joshua Pugh, Matthew Prue and Rebecca Beattie to pay

How much money was awarded in case 4740269?

Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $79.35 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $123.87 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Burnt Blind: $149.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740269?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9859821-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4740269?

The tribunal order states: Thomas Hendrikz, Joshua Pugh, Matthew Prue and Rebecca Beattie to pay

How much money was awarded in case 4740269?

Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $79.35 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $123.87 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Burnt Blind: $149.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740269?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9859821-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

245 Salisbury Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4740269 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4740269 — net $502.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$123.87	Rent arrears
Cleaning: Allowance for areas overlooked by tenants	$149.50	Cleaning: Allowance for areas overlooked by tenants
Lawns and Garden work: Collection and disposal of cabbage tree leaves	$79.35	Lawns and Garden work: Collection and disposal of cabbage tree leaves
Replace furnishings: Burnt blind	$149.50	Replace furnishings: Burnt blind
Net award	$502.22
Bond	$1,940.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$502.22

Order

Thomas Hendrikz, Joshua Pugh, Matthew Prue and Rebecca Beattie to pay Rentworks Property Management 2018 Limited $502.22 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for oven cleaning was withdrawn at the hearing.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,940.00 (5441896-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentworks Property Management 2018 Limited : $502.22 Thomas Hendrikz, Joshua Pugh, Matthew Prue and Rebecca Beattie: $1,437.78

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Switalla and Mr Manderson appeared for the landlord. Mr Hendrikz and Ms Beattie appeared on behalf of the tenants with written authorisation provided from Mr Prue and Mr Pugh.
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 8 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which show the amount claimed for arrears at the end of the tenancy.
The parties had agreed that the rent would increase from $485.00 to $500.00, in conjunction with a tenancy renewal, on 31 October 2022. The landlord provided a rent summary which showed that the tenant had neglected to pay the increase for 23 weeks resulting in arrears of $345.00. The tenant had attempted to clear the arrears with an extra payment of $206.13 on 4 April 2023 but this payment left an arrears balance of $138.87 showing as owing at the end of the tenancy.
On my reading of the rent summary, it appears that the new rent amount of $500 was charged for the week beginning 24 October 2022; that is, a week before the renewal and the rent increase were due to commence. Consequently, I have deducted $15 (one week’s rent increase) from the rent arrears amount claimed to come to an arrears amount of $123.87.
The amount ordered is proved.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Both the landlord and tenant came to the hearing well prepared and with helpful evidence. The landlord provided an ingoing inspection report and photographs of the property both before the tenancy commenced and taken on the day following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant requested that the landlord provide confirmation to the Tribunal that the photographs were indeed taken on the day after the tenancy ended. The landlord provided this confirmation by sending the complete file to the Tribunal. The file included the date the photographs were taken and confirms that they were taken on 9 October 2023.
The tenants provided videos of the property filmed after they had completed the cleaning of the house and garden.
The landlord claimed a total of three and a half hours cleaning at $52.00 per hour plus a vehicle charge of $30 (plus GST). They also claimed $48.00 plus GST for cleaning the rangehood. The total claimed for cleaning the interior of the property was $299.00.
The tenants provided video evidence to show they had made what they considered a reasonable effort to clean the property.
On viewing the landlord’s photographs, the tenants accepted that they had missed some kitchen drawers and one cupboard.
They considered that all other cupboards, floors throughout, kitchen benches, bathroom cupboards, fixtures and fittings (including the shower and toilet) and other surfaces had been cleaned to a satisfactory level.
The tenants accepted that the photographs showed that the heat pump filters had not been cleaned but claimed, as the heat pump was placed in an unusual place, they had not used it more than about 20 times during the tenancy and had preferred to use personal heaters and the other fixed heating in the property in preference to the heat pump. The landlord did not have any photos to show that the heat pump filters were clean at the beginning of the tenancy and there is no reference to the heat pump in the ingoing report.
I find the tenant is not liable for the cleaning of the heat pump filters.
The tenant gave evidence that they had cleaned the rangehood filters during the tenancy, but the photographs provided by the landlord indicated that this had not taken place for some time and had not ben attended to at the end of the tenancy.
The oven and hob were not well cleaned at the end of the tenancy, but the landlord withdrew this claim as the ingoing report suggested that the neither were perfectly clean at the start of the tenancy. There is no such reference to the rangehood which is described as “RVS in good working order.”
I find that the tenant overlooked the cleaning of the rangehood.
I also find that the tenant overlooked cleaning some kitchen drawers and cupboards (as accepted by the tenant at 11 above), some walls marks (visible in the landlord’s photographs and the tenant’s video), some (very high) cobwebs (visible in the landlord’s photographs) and some other minor matters.
The tenants had been in the property for almost four years and the property consists of an old villa. Given this, I consider that the tenants made a good effort to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The ingoing report confirms that the house had not been well cleaned prior to the tenancy and there were also some cracked windows and peeling paint on windowsills. The landlord’s photographs show that windows had been filled and sealed in places which makes good cleaning and mould removal more difficult.
A landlord may want a property to be cleaned to the highest standard for a new tenant, but it is not reasonable to expect that from an outgoing tenant and the Act does not require it.
Given the above, I have awarded the landlord the travel cost for the cleaner and one hour’s labour to reflect the items that the tenant admitted overlooking and the matters I find they overlooked making a total of $149.50 including GST.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also claimed $257.60 for garden work. Although the garden photographs were taken the day after the tenancy ended, the tenants rightly pointed out that the gardening work was not completed until 24 October 2023. That is two weeks after the end of the tenancy (in spring).
It was apparent to me from the ingoing photographs that the tenant had improved the state of the garden in some respects. However, the tenant had not removed cabbage tree leaves from around the property for some time.
The tenant suggested that there had been strong winds between the end of the tenancy and the date of the completion of the garden work, but the cabbage tree leaves in the photographs are plentiful and have dried with age, so I do not accept that they all, or even mostly, fell in that period.
I have awarded the landlord the equivalent of half and hours’ labour, travel costs and general waste dumping (for the dumping of cabbage tree leaves which are not considered green waste), being $79.35.
The landlord claimed for the replacement costs associated with one scorched curtain and the cleaning costs relating to another curtain which had some mildew on the back of it.
The tenants admitted that they had accidently damaged one curtain due to having the toaster too close to it. The tenant accepted responsibility for the replacement costs and part of the labour and vehicle charge. The total amount that the tenant is liable for in relation to the curtain replacement is $149.50.
The amount ordered is proved.
On reviewing the ingoing report, I note that the door the mildew damaged curtain covers is recorded as having a crack in the window. I do not consider that the tenant can be responsible for allowing mildew to form on a curtain covering a window with a crack in it. Further, the tenant cannot properly be expected to remove and wash curtains prior to the end of the tenancy.
The tenants are not liable for the mildew damaged curtain. Filing fee
Given both parties have had some success, costs lie where they fall.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4740269 — net $502.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$123.87	Rent arrears
Cleaning: Allowance for areas overlooked by tenants	$149.50	Cleaning: Allowance for areas overlooked by tenants
Lawns and Garden work: Collection and disposal of cabbage tree leaves	$79.35	Lawns and Garden work: Collection and disposal of cabbage tree leaves
Replace furnishings: Burnt blind	$149.50	Replace furnishings: Burnt blind
Net award	$502.22
Bond	$1,940.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$502.22

Order

Thomas Hendrikz, Joshua Pugh, Matthew Prue and Rebecca Beattie to pay Rentworks Property Management 2018 Limited $502.22 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claim for oven cleaning was withdrawn at the hearing.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,940.00 (5441896-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentworks Property Management 2018 Limited : $502.22 Thomas Hendrikz, Joshua Pugh, Matthew Prue and Rebecca Beattie: $1,437.78

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Switalla and Mr Manderson appeared for the landlord. Mr Hendrikz and Ms Beattie appeared on behalf of the tenants with written authorisation provided from Mr Prue and Mr Pugh.
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 8 October 2023. The landlord provided rent records which show the amount claimed for arrears at the end of the tenancy.
The parties had agreed that the rent would increase from $485.00 to $500.00, in conjunction with a tenancy renewal, on 31 October 2022. The landlord provided a rent summary which showed that the tenant had neglected to pay the increase for 23 weeks resulting in arrears of $345.00. The tenant had attempted to clear the arrears with an extra payment of $206.13 on 4 April 2023 but this payment left an arrears balance of $138.87 showing as owing at the end of the tenancy.
On my reading of the rent summary, it appears that the new rent amount of $500 was charged for the week beginning 24 October 2022; that is, a week before the renewal and the rent increase were due to commence. Consequently, I have deducted $15 (one week’s rent increase) from the rent arrears amount claimed to come to an arrears amount of $123.87.
The amount ordered is proved.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Both the landlord and tenant came to the hearing well prepared and with helpful evidence. The landlord provided an ingoing inspection report and photographs of the property both before the tenancy commenced and taken on the day following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant requested that the landlord provide confirmation to the Tribunal that the photographs were indeed taken on the day after the tenancy ended. The landlord provided this confirmation by sending the complete file to the Tribunal. The file included the date the photographs were taken and confirms that they were taken on 9 October 2023.
The tenants provided videos of the property filmed after they had completed the cleaning of the house and garden.
The landlord claimed a total of three and a half hours cleaning at $52.00 per hour plus a vehicle charge of $30 (plus GST). They also claimed $48.00 plus GST for cleaning the rangehood. The total claimed for cleaning the interior of the property was $299.00.
The tenants provided video evidence to show they had made what they considered a reasonable effort to clean the property.
On viewing the landlord’s photographs, the tenants accepted that they had missed some kitchen drawers and one cupboard.
They considered that all other cupboards, floors throughout, kitchen benches, bathroom cupboards, fixtures and fittings (including the shower and toilet) and other surfaces had been cleaned to a satisfactory level.
The tenants accepted that the photographs showed that the heat pump filters had not been cleaned but claimed, as the heat pump was placed in an unusual place, they had not used it more than about 20 times during the tenancy and had preferred to use personal heaters and the other fixed heating in the property in preference to the heat pump. The landlord did not have any photos to show that the heat pump filters were clean at the beginning of the tenancy and there is no reference to the heat pump in the ingoing report.
I find the tenant is not liable for the cleaning of the heat pump filters.
The tenant gave evidence that they had cleaned the rangehood filters during the tenancy, but the photographs provided by the landlord indicated that this had not taken place for some time and had not ben attended to at the end of the tenancy.
The oven and hob were not well cleaned at the end of the tenancy, but the landlord withdrew this claim as the ingoing report suggested that the neither were perfectly clean at the start of the tenancy. There is no such reference to the rangehood which is described as “RVS in good working order.”
I find that the tenant overlooked the cleaning of the rangehood.
I also find that the tenant overlooked cleaning some kitchen drawers and cupboards (as accepted by the tenant at 11 above), some walls marks (visible in the landlord’s photographs and the tenant’s video), some (very high) cobwebs (visible in the landlord’s photographs) and some other minor matters.
The tenants had been in the property for almost four years and the property consists of an old villa. Given this, I consider that the tenants made a good effort to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The ingoing report confirms that the house had not been well cleaned prior to the tenancy and there were also some cracked windows and peeling paint on windowsills. The landlord’s photographs show that windows had been filled and sealed in places which makes good cleaning and mould removal more difficult.
A landlord may want a property to be cleaned to the highest standard for a new tenant, but it is not reasonable to expect that from an outgoing tenant and the Act does not require it.
Given the above, I have awarded the landlord the travel cost for the cleaner and one hour’s labour to reflect the items that the tenant admitted overlooking and the matters I find they overlooked making a total of $149.50 including GST.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also claimed $257.60 for garden work. Although the garden photographs were taken the day after the tenancy ended, the tenants rightly pointed out that the gardening work was not completed until 24 October 2023. That is two weeks after the end of the tenancy (in spring).
It was apparent to me from the ingoing photographs that the tenant had improved the state of the garden in some respects. However, the tenant had not removed cabbage tree leaves from around the property for some time.
The tenant suggested that there had been strong winds between the end of the tenancy and the date of the completion of the garden work, but the cabbage tree leaves in the photographs are plentiful and have dried with age, so I do not accept that they all, or even mostly, fell in that period.
I have awarded the landlord the equivalent of half and hours’ labour, travel costs and general waste dumping (for the dumping of cabbage tree leaves which are not considered green waste), being $79.35.
The landlord claimed for the replacement costs associated with one scorched curtain and the cleaning costs relating to another curtain which had some mildew on the back of it.
The tenants admitted that they had accidently damaged one curtain due to having the toaster too close to it. The tenant accepted responsibility for the replacement costs and part of the labour and vehicle charge. The total amount that the tenant is liable for in relation to the curtain replacement is $149.50.
The amount ordered is proved.
On reviewing the ingoing report, I note that the door the mildew damaged curtain covers is recorded as having a crack in the window. I do not consider that the tenant can be responsible for allowing mildew to form on a curtain covering a window with a crack in it. Further, the tenant cannot properly be expected to remove and wash curtains prior to the end of the tenancy.
The tenants are not liable for the mildew damaged curtain. Filing fee
Given both parties have had some success, costs lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740269 — Cleanliness at 245 Salisbury Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740269 — Cleanliness at 245 Salisbury Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions