What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4872484 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4872484?

Access Swipe (By Consent: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Apartment Door Rekey (By Consent: $269.74 awarded to landlord; Dispose Inorganic Waste (By Consent: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Less Payment Made By Tenant: $1,530.00 awarded to tenant; Less Payment Made By Tenant: $726.90 awarded to tenant; Mailbox & Storage Rekey (By Consent: $325.91 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,060.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $661.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872484?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10495928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4872484 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4872484?

Access Swipe (By Consent: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Apartment Door Rekey (By Consent: $269.74 awarded to landlord; Dispose Inorganic Waste (By Consent: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Less Payment Made By Tenant: $1,530.00 awarded to tenant; Less Payment Made By Tenant: $726.90 awarded to tenant; Mailbox & Storage Rekey (By Consent: $325.91 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,060.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $661.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872484?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872484?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10495928-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 518, 147 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4872484 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4872484 — net $2,206.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20/04/2024 (by consent	$3,060.00		Rent arrears to 20/04/2024 (by consent
Apartment door rekey (by consent	$269.74		Apartment door rekey (by consent
Access swipe (by consent	$57.50		Access swipe (by consent
Cleaning, carpet cleaning, & rubbish removal (by	$661.25		Cleaning, carpet cleaning, & rubbish removal (by
Mailbox & storage rekey (by consent	$325.91		Mailbox & storage rekey (by consent
Dispose inorganic waste (by consent	$69.00		Dispose inorganic waste (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Less payment made by tenant		$1,530.00	Less payment made by tenant
Less payment made by tenant		$726.90	Less payment made by tenant
Total award	$4,463.84	$2,256.90
Net award	$2,206.94
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,206.94

[The tenant/s] to pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For Sei Kyong Kevin Oh $2,206.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For Sei Kyong Kevin Oh: $2,206.94 [The tenant/s]: $313.06

The landlord’s claims for the top-up ingoing cleaning ($253.00) and shower door handle repair ($138.00) are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was held by teleconference. 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.

Most of the landlord’s claims were agreed by consent by the tenant.

The tenant however disputed the landlord’s claims for the top-up ingoing cleaning ($253.00) and shower door handle repair ($138.00).

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, 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 tenant had already agreed by consent to cleaning costs (including carpet cleaning and rubbish removal) of $661.25, as ordered above. The landlord sought an additional top-up ingoing cleaning of $253.00.

I am not satisfied a further award for cleaning is warranted. The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard - nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

This claim is dismissed.

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 at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The landlord sought compensation to repair a shower door handle which had come off. The tenant did not recall this occurring during the tenancy.

The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

I am not persuaded that the landlord has established to the standard required that the tenant is liable for the damage claimed. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the repair were not simply required because of fair wear and tear and/or a general maintenance issue.

The claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee and suppression order

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I must order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord does not request name suppression.

The tenant has requested name suppression. The tenant agreed by consent to most of the landlord’s claims and was successful in defending the claims disputed. I have decided to exercise the Tribunal’s initiative and order suppression of the tenant’s name (section 95A RTA). I see little public interest in this matter, such that it might outweigh the interest of the parties in having a suppression order made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4872484 — net $2,206.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20/04/2024 (by consent	$3,060.00		Rent arrears to 20/04/2024 (by consent
Apartment door rekey (by consent	$269.74		Apartment door rekey (by consent
Access swipe (by consent	$57.50		Access swipe (by consent
Cleaning, carpet cleaning, & rubbish removal (by	$661.25		Cleaning, carpet cleaning, & rubbish removal (by
Mailbox & storage rekey (by consent	$325.91		Mailbox & storage rekey (by consent
Dispose inorganic waste (by consent	$69.00		Dispose inorganic waste (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Less payment made by tenant		$1,530.00	Less payment made by tenant
Less payment made by tenant		$726.90	Less payment made by tenant
Total award	$4,463.84	$2,256.90
Net award	$2,206.94
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,206.94

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For Sei Kyong Kevin Oh $2,206.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For Sei Kyong Kevin Oh: $2,206.94 [The tenant/s]: $313.06
The landlord’s claims for the top-up ingoing cleaning ($253.00) and shower door handle repair ($138.00) are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was held by teleconference. 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.
Most of the landlord’s claims were agreed by consent by the tenant.
The tenant however disputed the landlord’s claims for the top-up ingoing cleaning ($253.00) and shower door handle repair ($138.00).

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, 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 tenant had already agreed by consent to cleaning costs (including carpet cleaning and rubbish removal) of $661.25, as ordered above. The landlord sought an additional top-up ingoing cleaning of $253.00.
I am not satisfied a further award for cleaning is warranted. The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard - nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
This claim is dismissed.

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 at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord sought compensation to repair a shower door handle which had come off. The tenant did not recall this occurring during the tenancy.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
I am not persuaded that the landlord has established to the standard required that the tenant is liable for the damage claimed. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the repair were not simply required because of fair wear and tear and/or a general maintenance issue.
The claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee and suppression order
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I must order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord does not request name suppression.
The tenant has requested name suppression. The tenant agreed by consent to most of the landlord’s claims and was successful in defending the claims disputed. I have decided to exercise the Tribunal’s initiative and order suppression of the tenant’s name (section 95A RTA). I see little public interest in this matter, such that it might outweigh the interest of the parties in having a suppression order made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872484 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 518, 147 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872484 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 518, 147 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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