What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4834378 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay J R Property Management Limited $699.59 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4834378?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $529.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4834378?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4834378?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10517787-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4834378 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay J R Property Management Limited $699.59 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4834378?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $529.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4834378?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4834378?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10517787-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19 Breadalbane Road, Havelock North, Havelock North Tenancy Tribunal Case 4834378 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4834378 — net $699.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work and wallpaper repair	$529.15	Lawns and Garden work and wallpaper repair
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$699.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$699.59

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay J R Property Management Limited $699.59 from the Bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: J R Property Management Limited $699.59 [The tenant/s] - $2,140.41

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by teleconference.
The Owner, Mr Razos, appeared with the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy began on 5 August 2022. The agreement was signed with Pukeko Rental Managers who managed the tenancy until 7 June 2023 when management was transferred to this landlord.
The tenant gave notice of termination and the tenancy ended on 25 February 2024.
After a final inspection was done, the landlord e-mailed the tenant on 26 February 2024: “We undertook our final inspection on 26th February 2024 following your departure from the above property. Items that require attention prior to us releasing the bond to you are: 1. Gardens, 2. some areas require cleaning noted in attached report, 3. professional carpet clean, 4. Bedroom 3 corner right end of hall. Patch of wallpaper cut and placed on back wall where marks are. If you would like to complete these tasks yourself you'll need to have them done by 29th February.”
No further work was done by the tenant and the landlord engaged contractors to do it. Claims
The landlord’s application seeks the following compensation: • $200 for carpet cleaning • $529.15 for work undertaken on the lawns and gardens and to replace three strips of wallpaper in one of the bedrooms • $345.00 for cleaning.
The tenant has brought an application seeking recovery of her bond, the whole of which remains at the Bond Centre, even though only part of it is claimed by the landlord.

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

At the end of the tenancy a 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. Carpet cleaning
The tenant engaged [carpet cleaning company] to steam clean the carpets. A copy of the invoice shows that $170.00 was paid for that service which was completed on 23 February 2024.
The landlord says that the proprietor of that company, [the witness] phoned her out of the blue to mention concerns about the state of the carpet in the premises, apparently because he was unsatisfied with how they were left and did not want his reputation tarnished.
The landlord has provided an unsigned e-mail appearing to be from [the witness], which says, “Went to Breadlebane Rd to do a carpet clean and red fizzy drinks stain removal which was completely removed. When I enter the property there was a bad smell of pet urine and the carpets were rather dirty due to a dog living inside. I did offer a pet urine treatment which was declined. As per photos this is the result of pet urine stains. There was not a dog on property while I was there but there was clear evidence there was a dog living there. Eg dog bowl and crate located around the back of house. The carpet was in good condition but as tenant refused treatment I feel it wouldn't have been appropriate for new tenants to move into the smell of urine.”
Attempts were made, without success, to contact [the witness] during the hearing so he could give direct evidence.
The landlord then had a further steam cleaning of the carpets done, with heavy deodoriser applied.
The tenant gave direct evidence, under promise, that no dog had been living at the premises during her tenancy. She says the bowl and crate were there because belongings were being moved from a farm property and these were items that were being kept.
The tenant provided a statement from [witness], who was the property manager with Pukeko Rentals. His statement reads, “When I took over the management of the property prior to it being tenanted I went to the property with the previous management company.... on going in there, the carpets had just been commercially cleaned and there was a very strong dog smell throughout the house. At when I questioned [the previous property manager] on this, she replied that there had been a dog at the property the whole duration of the previous tenancy and obviously had spent a fair amount of time inside the house due to the strong dog odour throughout the house. I communicated this with the owner Steve Razos. At no stage did I see a dog at the property while [this tenant] was residing at the property and this was not allowed in the tenancy agreement so I see this odour being not any fault of hers as it was a pre- existing problem.”
[Tenant’s witness] was able to be contacted. His evidence unequivocally reinforced the statement he had given. He was equally clear and that the owner had been made aware of the issue at the time.
Mr Razos says he has no recollection of being told there was a problem with a dog odour at the property when the previous tenancy ended. He did acknowledge being aware that there had been a dog living there for some time.
I have a direct evidence from the then property manager and the tenant that there was a problem with dog odour at the premises when the tenancy started, after the carpets had been steam cleaned. I have direct evidence from the tenant that no dog lived at the property during her tenancy. I have direct evidence from the landlord and the owner that there was a strong dog odour at the premises at the end of the tendency, supported by an unsigned communication, said to be from [The witness].
The only explanation consistent with all that direct evidence, is that there was a pre-existing issue with dog odours in the carpet, made worse when the carpet was damp from being steam cleaned, which became apparent again when the carpets were cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
I cannot say of course whether that is definitely the case, but the evidence makes that a sufficient possibility that I do not find it proved that the carpet odours were caused during this tenancy. Grounds Work
Photographs show that it for the most part, the grounds at the premises were left a reasonably tidy condition. An area at the back however was left with gardens matted with weeds and an indistinct border between the lawns and the garden area.
The tenant had engaged a lawn mowing contractor during the tenancy to keep the lawns tidy but acknowledges that he did not undertake gardening work as well.
It appears that an effort was made to clean up that area at the end of the tenancy but it was not restored to the condition it ought to have been.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the work undertaken by the contractor did not extend to hedge or tree trimming, which would be the landlord’s responsibility.
I find it proved on balance that this area of the grounds was not left in reasonably tidy condition and the landlord should be reimbursed the costs of having it tidied. The amount claimed is reasonable and is proven by the invoice provided.
The same contractor also replaced 3 drops of wallpaper in the end bedroom. Photographs show that a patch had been applied to one area, which the tenant accepts was done by her. She questions whether the marks and damage to the areas where the other two strips of wallpaper were placed, were caused during the tenancy.
The entry inspection report makes no mention of any pre-existing damage of that nature. [Tenant’s witness] was asked but could not recall any such existing damage though did note some other existing issues, which are not included in the claim.
In the absence of evidence from the tenant showing that she was not responsible I find it proved on balance at the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
I award compensation in terms of the invoice provided, noting that the wallpaper was able to be replaced from some on hand, so it is only the labour and accessory materials costs that are being charged. Cleaning
As noted, the tenant had the premises commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The invoice provided by the cleaning company engaged by the landlord, is helpfully detailed and records all of the work that was done.
The photographs provided show that the premises appear to have been left and a reasonable condition, as would be expected after the tenant had paid several hundred dollars for it to be commercially cleaned.
Having viewed that evidence and heard from the parties, I am satisfied that there are a couple of areas, for instance in relation to clearing the shower and sink drains that ought to have been done but were not and which the landlord should receive some compensation for.
The landlord however is not entitled to expect that the that the tenant should leave the premises in “market ready” condition, ready for the start of a new tenancy. The tenant’s obligation is only to leave it in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The compensation award is assessed accordingly.
Because J R Property Management Limited has succeeded with claims brought, I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4834378 — net $699.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work and wallpaper repair	$529.15	Lawns and Garden work and wallpaper repair
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$699.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$699.59

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay J R Property Management Limited $699.59 from the Bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: J R Property Management Limited $699.59 [The tenant/s] - $2,140.41

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared by teleconference.
The Owner, Mr Razos, appeared with the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy began on 5 August 2022. The agreement was signed with Pukeko Rental Managers who managed the tenancy until 7 June 2023 when management was transferred to this landlord.
The tenant gave notice of termination and the tenancy ended on 25 February 2024.
After a final inspection was done, the landlord e-mailed the tenant on 26 February 2024: “We undertook our final inspection on 26th February 2024 following your departure from the above property. Items that require attention prior to us releasing the bond to you are: 1. Gardens, 2. some areas require cleaning noted in attached report, 3. professional carpet clean, 4. Bedroom 3 corner right end of hall. Patch of wallpaper cut and placed on back wall where marks are. If you would like to complete these tasks yourself you'll need to have them done by 29th February.”
No further work was done by the tenant and the landlord engaged contractors to do it. Claims
The landlord’s application seeks the following compensation: • $200 for carpet cleaning • $529.15 for work undertaken on the lawns and gardens and to replace three strips of wallpaper in one of the bedrooms • $345.00 for cleaning.
The tenant has brought an application seeking recovery of her bond, the whole of which remains at the Bond Centre, even though only part of it is claimed by the landlord.

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

At the end of the tenancy a 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. Carpet cleaning
The tenant engaged [carpet cleaning company] to steam clean the carpets. A copy of the invoice shows that $170.00 was paid for that service which was completed on 23 February 2024.
The landlord says that the proprietor of that company, [the witness] phoned her out of the blue to mention concerns about the state of the carpet in the premises, apparently because he was unsatisfied with how they were left and did not want his reputation tarnished.
The landlord has provided an unsigned e-mail appearing to be from [the witness], which says, “Went to Breadlebane Rd to do a carpet clean and red fizzy drinks stain removal which was completely removed. When I enter the property there was a bad smell of pet urine and the carpets were rather dirty due to a dog living inside. I did offer a pet urine treatment which was declined. As per photos this is the result of pet urine stains. There was not a dog on property while I was there but there was clear evidence there was a dog living there. Eg dog bowl and crate located around the back of house. The carpet was in good condition but as tenant refused treatment I feel it wouldn't have been appropriate for new tenants to move into the smell of urine.”
Attempts were made, without success, to contact [the witness] during the hearing so he could give direct evidence.
The landlord then had a further steam cleaning of the carpets done, with heavy deodoriser applied.
The tenant gave direct evidence, under promise, that no dog had been living at the premises during her tenancy. She says the bowl and crate were there because belongings were being moved from a farm property and these were items that were being kept.
The tenant provided a statement from [witness], who was the property manager with Pukeko Rentals. His statement reads, “When I took over the management of the property prior to it being tenanted I went to the property with the previous management company.... on going in there, the carpets had just been commercially cleaned and there was a very strong dog smell throughout the house. At when I questioned [the previous property manager] on this, she replied that there had been a dog at the property the whole duration of the previous tenancy and obviously had spent a fair amount of time inside the house due to the strong dog odour throughout the house. I communicated this with the owner Steve Razos. At no stage did I see a dog at the property while [this tenant] was residing at the property and this was not allowed in the tenancy agreement so I see this odour being not any fault of hers as it was a pre- existing problem.”
[Tenant’s witness] was able to be contacted. His evidence unequivocally reinforced the statement he had given. He was equally clear and that the owner had been made aware of the issue at the time.
Mr Razos says he has no recollection of being told there was a problem with a dog odour at the property when the previous tenancy ended. He did acknowledge being aware that there had been a dog living there for some time.
I have a direct evidence from the then property manager and the tenant that there was a problem with dog odour at the premises when the tenancy started, after the carpets had been steam cleaned. I have direct evidence from the tenant that no dog lived at the property during her tenancy. I have direct evidence from the landlord and the owner that there was a strong dog odour at the premises at the end of the tendency, supported by an unsigned communication, said to be from [The witness].
The only explanation consistent with all that direct evidence, is that there was a pre-existing issue with dog odours in the carpet, made worse when the carpet was damp from being steam cleaned, which became apparent again when the carpets were cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
I cannot say of course whether that is definitely the case, but the evidence makes that a sufficient possibility that I do not find it proved that the carpet odours were caused during this tenancy. Grounds Work
Photographs show that it for the most part, the grounds at the premises were left a reasonably tidy condition. An area at the back however was left with gardens matted with weeds and an indistinct border between the lawns and the garden area.
The tenant had engaged a lawn mowing contractor during the tenancy to keep the lawns tidy but acknowledges that he did not undertake gardening work as well.
It appears that an effort was made to clean up that area at the end of the tenancy but it was not restored to the condition it ought to have been.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the work undertaken by the contractor did not extend to hedge or tree trimming, which would be the landlord’s responsibility.
I find it proved on balance that this area of the grounds was not left in reasonably tidy condition and the landlord should be reimbursed the costs of having it tidied. The amount claimed is reasonable and is proven by the invoice provided.
The same contractor also replaced 3 drops of wallpaper in the end bedroom. Photographs show that a patch had been applied to one area, which the tenant accepts was done by her. She questions whether the marks and damage to the areas where the other two strips of wallpaper were placed, were caused during the tenancy.
The entry inspection report makes no mention of any pre-existing damage of that nature. [Tenant’s witness] was asked but could not recall any such existing damage though did note some other existing issues, which are not included in the claim.
In the absence of evidence from the tenant showing that she was not responsible I find it proved on balance at the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
I award compensation in terms of the invoice provided, noting that the wallpaper was able to be replaced from some on hand, so it is only the labour and accessory materials costs that are being charged. Cleaning
As noted, the tenant had the premises commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The invoice provided by the cleaning company engaged by the landlord, is helpfully detailed and records all of the work that was done.
The photographs provided show that the premises appear to have been left and a reasonable condition, as would be expected after the tenant had paid several hundred dollars for it to be commercially cleaned.
Having viewed that evidence and heard from the parties, I am satisfied that there are a couple of areas, for instance in relation to clearing the shower and sink drains that ought to have been done but were not and which the landlord should receive some compensation for.
The landlord however is not entitled to expect that the that the tenant should leave the premises in “market ready” condition, ready for the start of a new tenancy. The tenant’s obligation is only to leave it in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The compensation award is assessed accordingly.
Because J R Property Management Limited has succeeded with claims brought, I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4834378 — Cleanliness at 19 Breadalbane Road, Havelock North, Havelock North

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4834378 — Cleanliness at 19 Breadalbane Road, Havelock North, Havelock North

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions