What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4773929 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay Upartner Property Limited As Agent For Grace Grace

How much money was awarded in case 4773929?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $587.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773929?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10355754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4773929 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay Upartner Property Limited As Agent For Grace Grace

How much money was awarded in case 4773929?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $587.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773929?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10355754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 84 St Georges Road, Avondale, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4773929 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773929 — net $937.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$587.60	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Screen door repair	$50.00	Screen door repair
Net award	$937.60
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$937.60

[The tenant/s] is to pay Upartner Property Limited As Agent For Grace Grace Young $937.60 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Upartner Property Limited As Agent For Grace Grace Young: $937.60 [The tenant/s]: $1,542.40

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The parties are parties to application 4697449. This Order does not replace the Order made in that decision.

The tenant has applied for an Order that her bond be returned.

The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

I have expressed to the landlord my disappointment that arrangements have not been made for the undisputed part of the bond to be returned to the tenant before now.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 20 December 2023.

The landlord provided water rates invoices proving the water rates payable during the tenancy. The landlord also provided a spreadsheet recording what were said to be all the payments made by the tenant for water.

The tenant did not dispute the water charges but said she made payments for water not recorded on the landlord’s spreadsheet.

During the hearing the property manager was asked to check the spreadsheet against bank account records. Two further payments by the tenant were discovered, which the tenant confirmed and verified against her own bank statements.

The amount Ordered is no longer disputed.

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 claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Post tenancy photographs were provided which the property manager says prove the claim. The landlord paid $450.00 to have the premises professionally cleaned after the tenancy ended.

The tenant, who is a cleaner, says the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. She also questions the legitimacy of the invoice provided in support of the claim. The tenant says that no such cleaning business is to be found online.

I accept the property manager’s evidence that $450.00 was paid by the landlord to have the premises cleaned.

The question is whether, and if so to what extent, that cost was incurred because the tenant breached her obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The tenant has provided wide angled photographs showing that the premises appear to have been left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has produced a series of close up photographs showing particular areas which appear to need more cleaning.

I am satisfied that opportunity was give to the tenant to mitigate the claim by doing additional cleaning work herself.

The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in reasonable condition, not “market ready”.

The photographic evidence persuades me that for the most part the premises were left reasonable but that there were some areas where the landlord was entitled to expect more cleaning to have been done. From that evidence I asses fair compensation for additional cleaning required to be $150.00 (3 hours @ $50.00)

In making those findings I have not taken into account the findings in application 4697449 regarding the presence of mould in the premises and the landlord’s breach of its maintenance obligations. Those matters have been dealt with and compensated for in that earlier Order.

The landlord says that the tenant is responsible for blocking the drain in the bathroom vanity and should compensate the landlord for the $120.00 cost of having it unblocked.

The tenant has provided photographs from the end of the tenancy showing the vanity basin clean and free of any accumulated water.

The property manager says that the handyman who unblocked the drain said that the material blocking the drain is likely to have been quite recent.

Without having had evidence from the cleaners, I cannot discount the possibility that the drain was blocked from material having been put down it in the course of the premises being cleaned.

This is the landlord’s claim to prove and as I do not find it proved that the blockage occurred during the tenancy, I must dismiss the claim.

The tenant accepts that she was unable to clean the carpet, which she accepts was marked. She questions whether the invoice provided by the landlord is genuine.

The property manager has given direct evidence that $150.00 was paid to a third party to have the carpets cleaned. I have no reason to disbelieve that evidence. The cost is reasonable. I find that claim proved.

The tenant does not dispute liability for repair of the screen door.

As both parties have had positions upheld, no Order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773929 — net $937.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$587.60	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Screen door repair	$50.00	Screen door repair
Net award	$937.60
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$937.60