What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774180 about?

The tribunal order states: Courtney Argyle must pay [The landlord/s] $1,079.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4774180?

Cleaning: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Cook Top: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Door Curtain: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Glass Splash Back: $120.00 awarded to landlord; HRV Vent: $29.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Curtain: $10.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774180?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10030203-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774180 about?

The tribunal order states: Courtney Argyle must pay [The landlord/s] $1,079.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4774180?

Cleaning: $490.00 awarded to landlord; Cook Top: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Door Curtain: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Glass Splash Back: $120.00 awarded to landlord; HRV Vent: $29.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Shower Curtain: $10.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774180?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774180?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10030203-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774180 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774180 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774180 — net $1,079.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$490.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Shower curtain	$10.00	Shower curtain
Door curtain	$30.00	Door curtain
HRV vent	$29.00	HRV vent
Glass splash back	$120.00	Glass splash back
Repairs: Wall repairs	$150.00	Repairs: Wall repairs
Cook top	$30.00	Cook top
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,079.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,079.44

Claims and awards for application 4774180 — net $1,079.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $490.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Shower curtain

Amount: $10.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Shower curtain

Door curtain

Amount: $30.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door curtain

HRV vent

Amount: $29.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: HRV vent

Glass splash back

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Courtney Argyle must pay [The landlord/s] $1,079.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. She was phoned on the number provided but the call went to voicemail.
The landlords haves applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant did not leave the carpets at the premises reasonably clean, did not remove all rubbish, and did not leave all chattels provided for her benefit (the shower curtain, a curtain between the lounge and kitchen, and the HRV ceiling vent was missing) as required by: section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The amounts ordered are proved. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing the amount ordered for replacing the shower curtain and door curtain. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age of the items and their likely useful lifespan. The shower curtain was approximately two years old and is therefore near the end of its useful lifespan. The door curtain was approximately 6/ 7 years old and therefore also likely near its useful lifespan. I have therefore reduced the amounts claimed for both items ($80.00 for the shower curtain and $150.00 for the door curtain) to account for betterment.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has established that, during the tenancy, several walls at the premises were damaged by holes, the glass splash back was broken, and the cooktop was broken in several places. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The amounts ordered are proved. The landlords accept that some of the wall repair work (the total cost for the wall repair work was $500.00) was to repair damage due to fair wear and tear and they have therefore reduced the amount claimed to $150.00. I have also taken into account depreciation and betterment when assessing the amount ordered for replacing the cooktop. The cooktop was approximately 10 years old (and therefore near the end of its useful life) and had an existing crack, but was in good working order. In the circumstances I consider $30.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damaged cooktop.
The landlords have been successful in their claims, and I therefore award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlords applied, in their application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlords have been successful in their claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlords’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774180 — net $1,079.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$490.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Shower curtain	$10.00	Shower curtain
Door curtain	$30.00	Door curtain
HRV vent	$29.00	HRV vent
Glass splash back	$120.00	Glass splash back
Repairs: Wall repairs	$150.00	Repairs: Wall repairs
Cook top	$30.00	Cook top
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,079.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,079.44

Claims and awards for application 4774180 — net $1,079.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $490.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Shower curtain

Amount: $10.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Shower curtain

Door curtain

Amount: $30.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door curtain

HRV vent

Amount: $29.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: HRV vent

Glass splash back

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Courtney Argyle must pay [The landlord/s] $1,079.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. She was phoned on the number provided but the call went to voicemail.
The landlords haves applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant did not leave the carpets at the premises reasonably clean, did not remove all rubbish, and did not leave all chattels provided for her benefit (the shower curtain, a curtain between the lounge and kitchen, and the HRV ceiling vent was missing) as required by: section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The amounts ordered are proved. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing the amount ordered for replacing the shower curtain and door curtain. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age of the items and their likely useful lifespan. The shower curtain was approximately two years old and is therefore near the end of its useful lifespan. The door curtain was approximately 6/ 7 years old and therefore also likely near its useful lifespan. I have therefore reduced the amounts claimed for both items ($80.00 for the shower curtain and $150.00 for the door curtain) to account for betterment.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has established that, during the tenancy, several walls at the premises were damaged by holes, the glass splash back was broken, and the cooktop was broken in several places. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The amounts ordered are proved. The landlords accept that some of the wall repair work (the total cost for the wall repair work was $500.00) was to repair damage due to fair wear and tear and they have therefore reduced the amount claimed to $150.00. I have also taken into account depreciation and betterment when assessing the amount ordered for replacing the cooktop. The cooktop was approximately 10 years old (and therefore near the end of its useful life) and had an existing crack, but was in good working order. In the circumstances I consider $30.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damaged cooktop.
The landlords have been successful in their claims, and I therefore award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlords applied, in their application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlords have been successful in their claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlords’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774180 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774180 — Cleanliness

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?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

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?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions