What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4752169?

The tribunal order states: Bridget Kirsten Treleaven and Meagan Alicia Innes must pay Grenadier Rent

How much money was awarded in case 4752169?

Cleaning: $56.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,590.91 awarded to landlord; Eviction Costs: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $301.48 awarded to landlord; Insinkerator: $256.09 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,190.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752169?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9914465-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4752169?

The tribunal order states: Bridget Kirsten Treleaven and Meagan Alicia Innes must pay Grenadier Rent

How much money was awarded in case 4752169?

Cleaning: $56.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,590.91 awarded to landlord; Eviction Costs: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $301.48 awarded to landlord; Insinkerator: $256.09 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,190.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752169?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9914465-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Shale Court, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4752169 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4752169 — net $2,314.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: One room with stained carpet	$56.00		Carpet Cleaning: One room with stained carpet
Cleaning	$1,590.91		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,190.75		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work: apportioned	$299.00		Lawns and Garden work: apportioned
Lock/key replacement	$301.48		Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Insinkerator	$256.09		Repairs: Insinkerator
Eviction costs	$200.00		Eviction costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refunded to landlord		$2,600.00	Bond refunded to landlord
Total award	$4,914.67	$2,600.00
Net award	$2,314.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,314.67

Order

Bridget Kirsten Treleaven and Meagan Alicia Innes must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for Sushila and Clint Gamree $2,314.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for Sushila and Clint Gamree’s claim for the insurance excess of $400.00 is dismissed.
Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for Sushila and Clint Gamree‘s claim for $325.00 rent arrears may be pursued by a separate application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Toa and Ms Parsons attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears and bond
The tenancy ended on 24 October 2023. The landlord claimed for $325.00 for rent arrears in the application, but this claim was withdrawn at the hearing with the explanation that the arrears had been cleared.
The landlord was not able to provide information at the hearing in relation to the bond of $2,600.00, which had been refunded to the landlord, and was given leave to provide it after the hearing was completed.
The landlord provided information to the Tribunal shortly after the hearing in relation to this matter, confirming that $2,275.00 was held by the landlord in relation to claims addressed in this order.
The remaining $325.00 was purported to be taken to meet the claimed rent arrears. The tenants denied, during the hearing, that there were any rent arrears and were clearly unaware that their bond had been used in part, to clear the contested arrears.
The arrears claim was not tested at the hearing as the claim was withdrawn by the landlord and the tribunal was not aware, at that time, that the amount was being claimed from the bond.
The $325.00 cannot be applied to a contested rent arrears claim without the evidence being presented and the matter determined by the Tribunal.
The full bond of $2,600.00 is being credited to the tenant in this order.
The landlord has leave to reapply to the Tribunal for the rent arrears claim at a later date should it wish to do so.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed for professional cleaning of the carpet throughout the property. The photographs provided showed staining to the carpet in one room and the tenants accepted responsibility for this and accepted the claim for carpet cleaning in relation to that room.
The tenants did not accept the claim for carpet cleaning in the other rooms and the photographs did not support the claim. There were belongings left in other rooms but no evidence to support professional cleaning being required in these spaces.
The total amount claimed was $280.00 being the amount for cleaning of five carpeted rooms. I award one fifth of that amount for the room which had stained carpet only, being $56.00.
The landlord claimed for the costs of a full house clean.
The tenants explained that they had limited time to arrange to move having been evicted under a separate Order. The moving date followed a long weekend, and they were unable to arrange assistance during that period. As a consequence, the property had not been cleaned to the standard they would have wished, and they had not been able to dispose of unwanted items.
The tenants felt, however, that the house was reasonably clean given they had a house inspection three weeks earlier with no issues raised.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to support the amount claimed and that amount, being $1,590.91, is proved.
The landlord provided invoices and photographs to show that rubbish, furniture and other items had been left at the property. This included broken outdoor play equipment, tyres, and other heavy and bulky items.
The tenants acknowledged that they had left the items at the property but denied responsibility for the full amount claimed.
The evidence supports the landlord’s claim and the amount, being $2190.75, is proved.
The tenants did not return the keys and the landlord was required to change the locks. The tenant accepted that they had not returned the keys.
The amount ordered, being $301.48, for changing the locks is accepted by the tenants.
The landlord provided an invoice and photographs to show that the gardens and lawns had not been left in a reasonably tidy state. The total invoice was for $598.00 and included sums for dressing and seeding areas of lawn.
The ingoing report provided indicated that the lawn had “a few areas of dig patches which are visible in the photos.” The photographs attached to the report supported the written comment.
In these circumstances, I have reduced the amount claimed by 50% to reflect the work which the tenant should rightly be responsible for which is the lawn mow, weeding and general tidying of the outside area.
The amount ordered, being $299.00, is proved.
The landlord claimed the amount of their insurance excess of $400.00 in relation to items missing at the end of the tenancy.
A number of chattels were found to be missing at the end of the tenancy. This included the fridge and many items of furniture.
The police were involved in trying to locate this property and successfully returned many of the items to the landlord. Emails between the police and the landlord were provided by the landlord.
The tenants gave evidence at the hearing that an acquaintance of theirs had entered the property after they had left and stolen the items in question. They gave evidence that this person had been charged and was now in prison for the offending.
There is nothing before me to suggest that the tenants were responsible for the theft of this property. Someone else has been charged with the offending and the tenants have not been charged. In these circumstances I do not find the amount claimed for the insurance excess is proved.
The claim for the insurance excess of $400.00 is not proved and is dismissed.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The kitchen waste disposal unit was damaged during the tenancy. The ingoing report shows that the unit was working at the beginning of the tenancy. The invoice and oral evidence provided by the landlord show that the air switch button had been damaged and that inappropriate items had been put in the unit. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered, being $256.09 is proved. Filing fee for eviction application
The landlord and tenant were the subject of a sealed Mediator’s Order (4646189) dated 17 August 2023. The tenant failed to comply with that sealed Order and an eviction application was made by the landlord on 18 October 2023 at a cost of $200.00.
The landlord provided evidence that the fee had been paid. The amount ordered is proved. Filing fee
As Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for Sushila and Clint Gamree has substantially succeeded with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4752169 — net $2,314.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: One room with stained carpet	$56.00		Carpet Cleaning: One room with stained carpet
Cleaning	$1,590.91		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,190.75		Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work: apportioned	$299.00		Lawns and Garden work: apportioned
Lock/key replacement	$301.48		Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Insinkerator	$256.09		Repairs: Insinkerator
Eviction costs	$200.00		Eviction costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond refunded to landlord		$2,600.00	Bond refunded to landlord
Total award	$4,914.67	$2,600.00
Net award	$2,314.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,314.67

Order

Bridget Kirsten Treleaven and Meagan Alicia Innes must pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for Sushila and Clint Gamree $2,314.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for Sushila and Clint Gamree’s claim for the insurance excess of $400.00 is dismissed.
Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for Sushila and Clint Gamree‘s claim for $325.00 rent arrears may be pursued by a separate application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Toa and Ms Parsons attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears and bond
The tenancy ended on 24 October 2023. The landlord claimed for $325.00 for rent arrears in the application, but this claim was withdrawn at the hearing with the explanation that the arrears had been cleared.
The landlord was not able to provide information at the hearing in relation to the bond of $2,600.00, which had been refunded to the landlord, and was given leave to provide it after the hearing was completed.
The landlord provided information to the Tribunal shortly after the hearing in relation to this matter, confirming that $2,275.00 was held by the landlord in relation to claims addressed in this order.
The remaining $325.00 was purported to be taken to meet the claimed rent arrears. The tenants denied, during the hearing, that there were any rent arrears and were clearly unaware that their bond had been used in part, to clear the contested arrears.
The arrears claim was not tested at the hearing as the claim was withdrawn by the landlord and the tribunal was not aware, at that time, that the amount was being claimed from the bond.
The $325.00 cannot be applied to a contested rent arrears claim without the evidence being presented and the matter determined by the Tribunal.
The full bond of $2,600.00 is being credited to the tenant in this order.
The landlord has leave to reapply to the Tribunal for the rent arrears claim at a later date should it wish to do so.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed for professional cleaning of the carpet throughout the property. The photographs provided showed staining to the carpet in one room and the tenants accepted responsibility for this and accepted the claim for carpet cleaning in relation to that room.
The tenants did not accept the claim for carpet cleaning in the other rooms and the photographs did not support the claim. There were belongings left in other rooms but no evidence to support professional cleaning being required in these spaces.
The total amount claimed was $280.00 being the amount for cleaning of five carpeted rooms. I award one fifth of that amount for the room which had stained carpet only, being $56.00.
The landlord claimed for the costs of a full house clean.
The tenants explained that they had limited time to arrange to move having been evicted under a separate Order. The moving date followed a long weekend, and they were unable to arrange assistance during that period. As a consequence, the property had not been cleaned to the standard they would have wished, and they had not been able to dispose of unwanted items.
The tenants felt, however, that the house was reasonably clean given they had a house inspection three weeks earlier with no issues raised.
The landlord provided photographs and an invoice to support the amount claimed and that amount, being $1,590.91, is proved.
The landlord provided invoices and photographs to show that rubbish, furniture and other items had been left at the property. This included broken outdoor play equipment, tyres, and other heavy and bulky items.
The tenants acknowledged that they had left the items at the property but denied responsibility for the full amount claimed.
The evidence supports the landlord’s claim and the amount, being $2190.75, is proved.
The tenants did not return the keys and the landlord was required to change the locks. The tenant accepted that they had not returned the keys.
The amount ordered, being $301.48, for changing the locks is accepted by the tenants.
The landlord provided an invoice and photographs to show that the gardens and lawns had not been left in a reasonably tidy state. The total invoice was for $598.00 and included sums for dressing and seeding areas of lawn.
The ingoing report provided indicated that the lawn had “a few areas of dig patches which are visible in the photos.” The photographs attached to the report supported the written comment.
In these circumstances, I have reduced the amount claimed by 50% to reflect the work which the tenant should rightly be responsible for which is the lawn mow, weeding and general tidying of the outside area.
The amount ordered, being $299.00, is proved.
The landlord claimed the amount of their insurance excess of $400.00 in relation to items missing at the end of the tenancy.
A number of chattels were found to be missing at the end of the tenancy. This included the fridge and many items of furniture.
The police were involved in trying to locate this property and successfully returned many of the items to the landlord. Emails between the police and the landlord were provided by the landlord.
The tenants gave evidence at the hearing that an acquaintance of theirs had entered the property after they had left and stolen the items in question. They gave evidence that this person had been charged and was now in prison for the offending.
There is nothing before me to suggest that the tenants were responsible for the theft of this property. Someone else has been charged with the offending and the tenants have not been charged. In these circumstances I do not find the amount claimed for the insurance excess is proved.
The claim for the insurance excess of $400.00 is not proved and is dismissed.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The kitchen waste disposal unit was damaged during the tenancy. The ingoing report shows that the unit was working at the beginning of the tenancy. The invoice and oral evidence provided by the landlord show that the air switch button had been damaged and that inappropriate items had been put in the unit. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered, being $256.09 is proved. Filing fee for eviction application
The landlord and tenant were the subject of a sealed Mediator’s Order (4646189) dated 17 August 2023. The tenant failed to comply with that sealed Order and an eviction application was made by the landlord on 18 October 2023 at a cost of $200.00.
The landlord provided evidence that the fee had been paid. The amount ordered is proved. Filing fee
As Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for Sushila and Clint Gamree has substantially succeeded with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752169 — Cleanliness at 10 Shale Court, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752169 — Cleanliness at 10 Shale Court, Rolleston 7614

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