What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4870260 about?

The tribunal order states: Simon Young must pay [The landlord/s] $581.80 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4870260?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $529.95 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Belongings To Storage And…: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $36.59 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4870260?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4870260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10758375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4870260 about?

The tribunal order states: Simon Young must pay [The landlord/s] $581.80 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4870260?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $529.95 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Belongings To Storage And…: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $36.59 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4870260?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4870260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10758375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4870260 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4870260 — net $581.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$172.50		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50		Carpet Cleaning
Removal of belongings to storage and later disposal	$345.00		Removal of belongings to storage and later disposal
Lock/key replacement	$529.95		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$36.59	Rent credit
Total award	$1,263.39	$36.59
Net award	$581.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$581.80

Order

Simon Young must pay [The landlord/s] $581.80 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $645.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person.
The tenant, Mr Young, attended the hearing by teleconference. On 15 August 2024, Mr Young requested a teleconference saying that he could not attend the hearing in person because of serious injuries he had sustained which made him immobile. On 16 August 2024, I granted the teleconference request on the condition that Mr Young provide some form of medical evidence concerning his injuries. He did not provide this evidence. Nevertheless, he was called for the hearing and attended by telephone.
Mr Young says that he was unable to obtain evidence of his injuries in time for the hearing. I am not persuaded this is the case and, given the nature of the injuries he described, I would’ve expected he could provide a copy of his hospital discharge summary to evidence his injuries. In any event, the hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Unfortunately, the landlord was not advised that Mr Young was attending by teleconference. An email from the Tribunal Registry on 20 August 2024 advising them to file any additional evidence for the hearing with the Tribunal beforehand did not disclose that the tenant was attending by telephone and did not make clear that they would need to email any additional evidence to Mr Young before the hearing. The landlord produced photos at the hearing. However, these were scanned and sent to Mr Young during the hearing.

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 (RTA).
The tenancy was terminated by a previous Tribunal order under application 4792238 on 15 March 2024 (the first order).
I am satisfied Mr Young did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, with stains on the carpet and general cleaning required. Mr Young also failed to remove all rubbish and his belongings, which included a set of drawers, a bed, a drying rack and his birth certificate. The landlord produced photos of Mr Young’s room in evidence to prove their claims.
The landlord moved Mr Young’s belongings into storage on site. They emailed him on 2 April 2024 asking if he would like to arrange for these items to be collected, or, if he would prefer that the landlord dispose of them with the cost added to the end of tenancy charges. Mr Young did not respond to the email.
On 9 April 2024, the landlord sent a follow-up email to Mr Young referencing the previous email and advising him that the landlord would dispose of his belongings once the period of 35 days from the tenancy end date (of 15.3.24) expired. No response was received from Mr Young until 30 April 2024 when he replied “I will come and pick...up. Please email a good day and time.” The landlord advised that they had already disposed of the belongings because they did not hear from him within the 35-day time period. The landlord confirmed, however, that a birth certificate found amongst Mr Young’s belongings has been delivered to the Wellington Central Police Station for Mr Young to collect.
Mr Young also did not return the keys.
Mr Young explained that he was unable to clean his room, remove all his belongings and could not return the keys because he had been threatened by another resident at the premises and subsequently beaten up by another resident at the premises which caused the injuries he claims to have suffered. He says he was too scared to return. He also claims to have a head injury which meant that he was unable to deal with emails received from the landlord.
I note that Mr Young’s tenancy at the premises was terminated by me as set out in the first order because I was satisfied that Mr Young assaulted a neighbouring tenant at the premises and also made threats of assault against the landlord’s employees/agents. He has failed to provide evidence of injuries he says he has sustained which impeded his ability to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. He has also not provided evidence that he has been assaulted, such as a Police complaint.
On balance, I am not persuaded that Mr Young was unable to clean and clear his room and unable to contact the landlord to make arrangements for collecting his belongings and for returning the keys. Once he did reply on 30 April 2024, he advised that he would come and collect his belongings. This is contrary to his evidence that he was too scared to attend the premises.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proved their claims. In particular, I am satisfied that the landlord has followed the process for dealing with Mr Young’s belongings set out in sections 62, 62A and 62B RTA. They attempted to contact him to collect the goods; they held the goods securely for 35 days; and then disposed of them and lodged the birth certificate with Police.
The landlord explained that because the premises are a shared home with a master key system, when the locks were changed, the landlord also needed to provide copies of the new key for each resident and the landlord, which was costly.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord confirmed that they held some rent in credit for the tenant of $36.59 which may be applied to the costs awarded together with the bond.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details as requested, and to reimbursement of the filing fee on the application. K Stirling, 27 August 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4870260 — net $581.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$172.50		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50		Carpet Cleaning
Removal of belongings to storage and later disposal	$345.00		Removal of belongings to storage and later disposal
Lock/key replacement	$529.95		Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$36.59	Rent credit
Total award	$1,263.39	$36.59
Net award	$581.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$581.80

Order

Simon Young must pay [The landlord/s] $581.80 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $645.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person.
The tenant, Mr Young, attended the hearing by teleconference. On 15 August 2024, Mr Young requested a teleconference saying that he could not attend the hearing in person because of serious injuries he had sustained which made him immobile. On 16 August 2024, I granted the teleconference request on the condition that Mr Young provide some form of medical evidence concerning his injuries. He did not provide this evidence. Nevertheless, he was called for the hearing and attended by telephone.
Mr Young says that he was unable to obtain evidence of his injuries in time for the hearing. I am not persuaded this is the case and, given the nature of the injuries he described, I would’ve expected he could provide a copy of his hospital discharge summary to evidence his injuries. In any event, the hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Unfortunately, the landlord was not advised that Mr Young was attending by teleconference. An email from the Tribunal Registry on 20 August 2024 advising them to file any additional evidence for the hearing with the Tribunal beforehand did not disclose that the tenant was attending by telephone and did not make clear that they would need to email any additional evidence to Mr Young before the hearing. The landlord produced photos at the hearing. However, these were scanned and sent to Mr Young during the hearing.

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 (RTA).
The tenancy was terminated by a previous Tribunal order under application 4792238 on 15 March 2024 (the first order).
I am satisfied Mr Young did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, with stains on the carpet and general cleaning required. Mr Young also failed to remove all rubbish and his belongings, which included a set of drawers, a bed, a drying rack and his birth certificate. The landlord produced photos of Mr Young’s room in evidence to prove their claims.
The landlord moved Mr Young’s belongings into storage on site. They emailed him on 2 April 2024 asking if he would like to arrange for these items to be collected, or, if he would prefer that the landlord dispose of them with the cost added to the end of tenancy charges. Mr Young did not respond to the email.
On 9 April 2024, the landlord sent a follow-up email to Mr Young referencing the previous email and advising him that the landlord would dispose of his belongings once the period of 35 days from the tenancy end date (of 15.3.24) expired. No response was received from Mr Young until 30 April 2024 when he replied “I will come and pick...up. Please email a good day and time.” The landlord advised that they had already disposed of the belongings because they did not hear from him within the 35-day time period. The landlord confirmed, however, that a birth certificate found amongst Mr Young’s belongings has been delivered to the Wellington Central Police Station for Mr Young to collect.
Mr Young also did not return the keys.
Mr Young explained that he was unable to clean his room, remove all his belongings and could not return the keys because he had been threatened by another resident at the premises and subsequently beaten up by another resident at the premises which caused the injuries he claims to have suffered. He says he was too scared to return. He also claims to have a head injury which meant that he was unable to deal with emails received from the landlord.
I note that Mr Young’s tenancy at the premises was terminated by me as set out in the first order because I was satisfied that Mr Young assaulted a neighbouring tenant at the premises and also made threats of assault against the landlord’s employees/agents. He has failed to provide evidence of injuries he says he has sustained which impeded his ability to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. He has also not provided evidence that he has been assaulted, such as a Police complaint.
On balance, I am not persuaded that Mr Young was unable to clean and clear his room and unable to contact the landlord to make arrangements for collecting his belongings and for returning the keys. Once he did reply on 30 April 2024, he advised that he would come and collect his belongings. This is contrary to his evidence that he was too scared to attend the premises.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proved their claims. In particular, I am satisfied that the landlord has followed the process for dealing with Mr Young’s belongings set out in sections 62, 62A and 62B RTA. They attempted to contact him to collect the goods; they held the goods securely for 35 days; and then disposed of them and lodged the birth certificate with Police.
The landlord explained that because the premises are a shared home with a master key system, when the locks were changed, the landlord also needed to provide copies of the new key for each resident and the landlord, which was costly.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord confirmed that they held some rent in credit for the tenant of $36.59 which may be applied to the costs awarded together with the bond.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details as requested, and to reimbursement of the filing fee on the application. K Stirling, 27 August 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4870260 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4870260 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions