Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4788499 — Property damage at 15 Ironstone Place, Randwick Park, Auckland 2105
Decided 1 Aug 2024 · Published 1 Aug 2024 · Application 4788499
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- [The tenant/s] to pay Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited $420.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Sunrise Property Management And Services Limited: $420.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,980.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- This is the second hearing of these claims. On 12 June 2024, the hearing was adjourned to today for the landlord to provide the Tribunal with a Healthy Homes Assessment (“HHA”) and proof of the cockroach infestation.
- The landlord did provide this information. The HHA showed that the home was compliant and the final inspection report and Pest invoice from the Pest control company clearly stated that there was evidence of an infestation at the end of the tenancy.
- 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 29 December 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $100.00 owing at the end of the tenancy.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for the rent arrears.
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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- At the end of the tenancy the landlord stated that there was a cockroach infestation. In the exit inspection dated 30 December 2023 there is mention of cockroaches found in the house. Furthermore, the landlord provided an invoice from Joy Care Professional Cleaning Services dated 5 January 2024 for $120 plus GST for the cockroach treatment. The invoice notes that many cockroaches were in the kitchen area.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for $138.00 for the cockroach treatment.
- The landlord is seeking to claim $200.00 for the cost of repainting the mildewed ceiling in part of the garage. The tenant claims that he had been told by someone that the reason that this part of the garage ceiling was mouldy was because of a missing piece of the installion in the ceiling.
- The landlord disputes this and says that the mould was because the tenant was cooking in that area in the garage.
- I cannot determine who is correct, but the landlord provided a HHA which claimed the property was insulated and compliant. Furthermore, they provided a statement from Enviro insulation stating that the ceiling insulation was good. The landlord also provided an invoice to the Tribunal from G Force dated 18 July 2023, which was for a remedial tidy to existing ceiling insulation.
- There is no doubt that part of the garage ceiling was mouldy and that this occurred during the tenancy. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for $200.00 to repaint the garage ceiling. Bond:
- The tenant claim was for the refund of their bond. After the last hearing I directed that $1850.00 of the bond be immediately refunded to the tenant and $550.00 remain at the bond centre until the conclusion of this hearing.
- After the last hearing, the Bond Centre refunded all but $550.00 to the tenant. At the conclusion of the claims, I have awarded the landlord $438.00 from the remaining bond. The tenant is to be refunded the remaining $112.00 from the bond.
- The tenant sought suppression of their names and details. As the tenant has largely been successful in their claim, I may consider suppression. I am granting suppression of the tenant’s names and identifying details.
- The landlord did not seek suppression.
- As each party was partially successful, I am not reimbursing either party the cost of the filing fee.