What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4820280?

The tribunal order states: Khiyam Anwar Bhatti to pay Pranjal Devangi Avasia $731.12 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4820280?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent: $96.42 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $36.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820280?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10613267-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4820280?

The tribunal order states: Khiyam Anwar Bhatti to pay Pranjal Devangi Avasia $731.12 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4820280?

Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent: $96.42 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $36.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4820280?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4820280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10613267-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 131 Botany Road, Botany Downs, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4820280 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820280 — net $731.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent	$96.42	Rent
Water rates	$36.26	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning: ibnsurance excess carpet replaceent	$250.00	10. Some close up photos provided by the landlord do persuade me that in a few specific areas, more cleaning was required for the premises to be considered in…
Carpet Cleaning	$253.00	10. Some close up photos provided by the landlord do persuade me that in a few specific areas, more cleaning was required for the premises to be considered in…
Cleaning	$75.00	10. Some close up photos provided by the landlord do persuade me that in a few specific areas, more cleaning was required for the premises to be considered in…
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$731.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$731.12

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Bhatti’s wife also participated.

The tenant applied for an order that his bond be refunded. The landlord then applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee from the bond.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 25 February 2024.

The tenant made a payment of 10 days’ rent for the period from 15 to 25 February 2024. In doing so, the tenant inadvertently overlooked that the rent had been paid to 14 February, so that payment needed to include rent for 15 February as well – a total of 11 days.

The landlord provided the water rates invoice for the period covering the end of the tenancy and explained the basis on which he had calculated the tenant’s liability for water use up to that date. I find that to represent a fair apportionment of the parties’ liability for that invoice.

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.

Video evidence provided by the tenant shows that he and his family made significant efforts to clean the premises at the end of the tenancy and in almost all respects left it in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The landlord and his family were moving back into the premises. My view of the evidence is that their expectations about how the premises should be left for them, exceeded the tenant’s legal obligations.

The landlord confirmed that the cleaning bill of $253.00 for which compensation is claimed, was the only cleaning cost incurred by the landlord before moving into the premises. That does not seem to me an unreasonable amount for the landlord to meet, after a nearly 4 year tenancy.

Some close up photos provided by the landlord do persuade me that in a few specific areas, more cleaning was required for the premises to be considered in reasonable condition and a modest award of compensation is fair to recognise that.

The tenant had dogs living at the premises, although he is certain that they could not have been responsible for staining of the carpets. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the breed of dog kept by the tenant was different than what had been agreed as acceptable.

The tenant confirms that while the carpets were vacuumed several times, they were not shampooed or commercially cleaned. In the circumstances, I do not think it unreasonable that the landlord have the carpets commercially cleaned and be reimbursed the cost.

The sums paid by the landlord are proved by invoice.

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people or pets at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The landlord says that all the carpets were stained and in need of replacement. Because a separate excess would have applied to each claim to have the carpet in a room replaced, a claim was only made to have the carpet replaced in the lounge/ dining area.

Photographs provided by the landlord show staining and other minor damage to that carpet, although some existing damage at the start of the tenancy is noted in the agreement.

I find it proved on balance that damage which occurred during the tenancy, and was more than fair wear and tear, resulted in the need for the carpet to be replaced.

The claim was accepted and an excess of $1,250.00 was paid by the landlord.

In assessing compensation, the landlord should be returned to the position he would have been in had the tenant not breached his obligations and should not be better or worse off. I therefore need to take into account that at the end of the tenancy the carpet was at least 8 years old and had some existing minor damage when the tenancy began.

The IRD depreciation tables give an estimated useful life for carpets in residential rental properties, of 8 years. Using that guide, the carpet that was replaced can be said to have already reached the end of its useful life by the end of the tenancy. I accept however that it would have had some residual value to the landlord and the landlord is unlikely to have elected to replace it but for the damage occurring during the tenancy. A modest award of compensation is therefore appropriate.

Because the landlord has had claims upheld, I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4820280 — net $731.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent	$96.42	Rent
Water rates	$36.26	Water rates
Carpet Cleaning: ibnsurance excess carpet replaceent	$250.00	10. Some close up photos provided by the landlord do persuade me that in a few specific areas, more cleaning was required for the premises to be considered in…
Carpet Cleaning	$253.00	10. Some close up photos provided by the landlord do persuade me that in a few specific areas, more cleaning was required for the premises to be considered in…
Cleaning	$75.00	10. Some close up photos provided by the landlord do persuade me that in a few specific areas, more cleaning was required for the premises to be considered in…
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$731.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$731.12

Order

Khiyam Anwar Bhatti to pay Pranjal Devangi Avasia $731.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bind Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 as follows: Pranjal Devangi Avasia $731.12 Khiyam Anwar Bhatti $1,708.88

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Bhatti’s wife also participated.
The tenant applied for an order that his bond be refunded. The landlord then applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee from the bond.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 25 February 2024.
The tenant made a payment of 10 days’ rent for the period from 15 to 25 February 2024. In doing so, the tenant inadvertently overlooked that the rent had been paid to 14 February, so that payment needed to include rent for 15 February as well – a total of 11 days.
The landlord provided the water rates invoice for the period covering the end of the tenancy and explained the basis on which he had calculated the tenant’s liability for water use up to that date. I find that to represent a fair apportionment of the parties’ liability for that invoice.

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.
Video evidence provided by the tenant shows that he and his family made significant efforts to clean the premises at the end of the tenancy and in almost all respects left it in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord and his family were moving back into the premises. My view of the evidence is that their expectations about how the premises should be left for them, exceeded the tenant’s legal obligations.
The landlord confirmed that the cleaning bill of $253.00 for which compensation is claimed, was the only cleaning cost incurred by the landlord before moving into the premises. That does not seem to me an unreasonable amount for the landlord to meet, after a nearly 4 year tenancy.
Some close up photos provided by the landlord do persuade me that in a few specific areas, more cleaning was required for the premises to be considered in reasonable condition and a modest award of compensation is fair to recognise that.
The tenant had dogs living at the premises, although he is certain that they could not have been responsible for staining of the carpets. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the breed of dog kept by the tenant was different than what had been agreed as acceptable.
The tenant confirms that while the carpets were vacuumed several times, they were not shampooed or commercially cleaned. In the circumstances, I do not think it unreasonable that the landlord have the carpets commercially cleaned and be reimbursed the cost.
The sums paid by the landlord are proved by invoice.

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people or pets at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord says that all the carpets were stained and in need of replacement. Because a separate excess would have applied to each claim to have the carpet in a room replaced, a claim was only made to have the carpet replaced in the lounge/ dining area.
Photographs provided by the landlord show staining and other minor damage to that carpet, although some existing damage at the start of the tenancy is noted in the agreement.
I find it proved on balance that damage which occurred during the tenancy, and was more than fair wear and tear, resulted in the need for the carpet to be replaced.
The claim was accepted and an excess of $1,250.00 was paid by the landlord.
In assessing compensation, the landlord should be returned to the position he would have been in had the tenant not breached his obligations and should not be better or worse off. I therefore need to take into account that at the end of the tenancy the carpet was at least 8 years old and had some existing minor damage when the tenancy began.
The IRD depreciation tables give an estimated useful life for carpets in residential rental properties, of 8 years. Using that guide, the carpet that was replaced can be said to have already reached the end of its useful life by the end of the tenancy. I accept however that it would have had some residual value to the landlord and the landlord is unlikely to have elected to replace it but for the damage occurring during the tenancy. A modest award of compensation is therefore appropriate.
Because the landlord has had claims upheld, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820280 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 131 Botany Road, Botany Downs, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4820280 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 131 Botany Road, Botany Downs, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Frequently asked questions