What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4797777?

The tribunal order states: Jacqueline Brady must pay Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Waiwhiu

How much money was awarded in case 4797777?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,330.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797777?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10066466-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4797777?

The tribunal order states: Jacqueline Brady must pay Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Waiwhiu

How much money was awarded in case 4797777?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,330.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797777?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10066466-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Gibson Road, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4797777 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797777 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,330.00	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	, but throughout the house. Taking that into account, I order the tenant to pay $150.00 towards the carpet cleaning.
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

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 16 January 2024. The landlord had given the tenant 90 days’ notice of termination, with the 16 th of January 2024 being the final day. On 7 January 2024, the tenant advised the landlord that she had moved out. The tenant was required, in the event that she wished to end the tenant prior to 16 January 2024, to give the landlord a minimum of 28 days’ notice (see s.51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986(“RTA”). The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,330.00.

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 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.

The tenant had a dog and a cat. The tenancy agreement recorded that the tenant could keep the pets at the premises.

That approval was conditional. Somewhat confusingly, one clause I the tenancy agreement simply states that the tenant must have the carpets professional cleaned at the end of the tenancy. A second clause says that if the premises are not left reasonably clean and tidy, that the landlord may require the premises to be commercially cleaned. In that confusing situation, I consider that the agreement should be construed in favour of the tenant, namely that if the premises are not left reasonably clean and tidy, the landlord may require them to be commercially cleaned.

The evidence on this point was in dispute. The tenant said that she left the carpets reasonably clean. The landlord agreed that this was correct, but said that there was a strong animal odour. She referred to it as being a “wet dog smell”. I accept the evidence of the landlord on this issue and consider that the smell meant that the premises could not be said to be reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord provided an invoice for having the carpets cleaned throughout the premises. This has resulted in some betterment to the landlord who has had carpets cleaned not just in areas where there may have been an odour, but throughout the house. Taking that into account, I order the tenant to pay $150.00 towards the carpet cleaning.

The landlord seeks $253.00 compensation for rubbish removal.

There was also some dispute in the evidence on this issue. The tenant said some of the items removed were not hers and had been present since the start of the tenancy . She went on to say that some of the rubbish had been removed by her. I suspect that the correct position is somewhere between the landlord and the tenant evidence as clearly some large items did have to be removed. The tenant is ordered to pay compensation of $200.00.

As Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Waiwhiu Holdings Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.

In the present case, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.

I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.

I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.

In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.

Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797777 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,330.00	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	, but throughout the house. Taking that into account, I order the tenant to pay $150.00 towards the carpet cleaning.
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

Jacqueline Brady must pay Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Waiwhiu Holdings Ltd $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,680.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 16 January 2024. The landlord had given the tenant 90 days’ notice of termination, with the 16 th of January 2024 being the final day. On 7 January 2024, the tenant advised the landlord that she had moved out. The tenant was required, in the event that she wished to end the tenant prior to 16 January 2024, to give the landlord a minimum of 28 days’ notice (see s.51 Residential Tenancies Act 1986(“RTA”). The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,330.00.

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 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant had a dog and a cat. The tenancy agreement recorded that the tenant could keep the pets at the premises.
That approval was conditional. Somewhat confusingly, one clause I the tenancy agreement simply states that the tenant must have the carpets professional cleaned at the end of the tenancy. A second clause says that if the premises are not left reasonably clean and tidy, that the landlord may require the premises to be commercially cleaned. In that confusing situation, I consider that the agreement should be construed in favour of the tenant, namely that if the premises are not left reasonably clean and tidy, the landlord may require them to be commercially cleaned.
The evidence on this point was in dispute. The tenant said that she left the carpets reasonably clean. The landlord agreed that this was correct, but said that there was a strong animal odour. She referred to it as being a “wet dog smell”. I accept the evidence of the landlord on this issue and consider that the smell meant that the premises could not be said to be reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord provided an invoice for having the carpets cleaned throughout the premises. This has resulted in some betterment to the landlord who has had carpets cleaned not just in areas where there may have been an odour, but throughout the house. Taking that into account, I order the tenant to pay $150.00 towards the carpet cleaning.
The landlord seeks $253.00 compensation for rubbish removal.
There was also some dispute in the evidence on this issue. The tenant said some of the items removed were not hers and had been present since the start of the tenancy . She went on to say that some of the rubbish had been removed by her. I suspect that the correct position is somewhere between the landlord and the tenant evidence as clearly some large items did have to be removed. The tenant is ordered to pay compensation of $200.00.
As Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Waiwhiu Holdings Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797777 — Rent arrears at 36 Gibson Road, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797777 — Rent arrears at 36 Gibson Road, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204

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