What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4885547?

The tribunal order states: Tyler Marie Rose Growden must pay Raouf Hussein Aghaei $3,298.96

How much money was awarded in case 4885547?

Cleaning: $945.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $880.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 483680 Da…: $1,434.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Removing Smell From Walls And Repain…: $590.97 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,152.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885547?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885547?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10859556-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4885547?

The tribunal order states: Tyler Marie Rose Growden must pay Raouf Hussein Aghaei $3,298.96

How much money was awarded in case 4885547?

Cleaning: $945.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $880.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 483680 Da…: $1,434.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Removing Smell From Walls And Repain…: $590.97 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,152.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885547?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885547?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10859556-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Madison Place, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4885547 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885547 — net $3,298.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 483680 dated 17/04/2024	$1,434.71	Previous order application 483680 dated 17/04/2024
Rubbish removal	$2,152.84	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$880.00	Lawns and Garden work
Removing smell from walls and repainting	$590.97	Removing smell from walls and repainting
Cleaning	$945.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$75.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,298.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,298.96

Order

Tyler Marie Rose Growden must pay Raouf Hussein Aghaei $3,298.96 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 April 2024 under application 4836380.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6193028-026) to Raouf Hussein Aghaei immediately.
The applications for damage to the carpet and the vinyl are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why she would not attend the hearing and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v)) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
In March 2024, the landlord was contacted by Auckland Council regarding complaints it had received about the state of the property. Auckland Council advised the landlord that in order to avoid a notice being issued under the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015, he needed to take steps including removing the rubbish and maintaining the overgrown vegetation.
In addition to correspondence from the Council, the landlord has provided photographs which he says were taken immediately before the tenancy for advertising purposes and numerous photographs showing the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided a video of the premises.
The tenant left the premises in a very poor state. The photographs provided show that a significant amount of rubbish was left at the property, some form of animal faeces was left inside the property and the grounds were overgrown.
The landlord has provided invoices for work carried out to clean the property, remove the rubbish and mow the lawns. This claim is proved and I order: $2,152.84 (inclusive of GST – if any) for rubbish removal including purchasing of bins, services of a contractor at $50 per hour to collect the rubbish for removal and fees of a rubbish removal company to collect and dispose of the rubbish; $945.00 (inclusive of GST – if any) for general cleaning; and $880.00(inclusive of GST – if any) to mow the lawns.
The keys were not returned, and I award $75.00 (inclusive of GST, if any) being 3 hours of the owner’s own time at $25 per hour to replace the locks.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for: a) Damaged carpet and damaged vinyl; b) damaged stove; and c) damaged walls.
Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Where the damage is careless, section 49B of the RTA applies. If the damage is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
The tenancy agreement provided by the landlord appears to be missing a number of pages including the insurance statement. I note that the Insurance Statement, as required by sections 13A(2)(b), 45(2B) and (2C) of the RTA forms an important part of the tenancy agreement. This has been demonstrated by Parliament which made a failure to comply with the requirement an infringement offence and liable to a fine or an infringement fee, as specified in Schedule 1B of the RTA. The landlord advised at the hearing that the building is insured but the contents are not, and the excess is $5,000. The landlord also advised that it was the agent at the time who prepared the tenancy agreement, and he advised the agent of the insurance information. a) Damage to carpet and vinyl:
From the photographs provided, I accept that the damage to the carpet and to the vinyl occurred during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved that the damage was intentional.
However, that is not the end of the matter. Before making an order, I must take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been if the tenant had not breached their obligations to the landlord. This means the landlord cannot receive compensation that would put them into a better position. To calculate depreciation, it is necessary to take into account the age and general condition of the item when the damage occurred, and the item’s otherwise useful life span.
The Inland Revenue Depreciation Guide provides that carpet has a lifespan of 8 years and vinyl 10 years. 1 The landlord advised that both the carpet and the vinyl were 10 years of age. Both the vinyl and the carpet had exceeded their useful life span and were due to be replaced. For this reason, these claims are dismissed. b) Damage to the stove:
The tenant provided a photograph of a stove which had been disconnected from the wall and left outside by the tenant. The landlord said he purchased the stove at the start of the tenancy for $400 from GST. I make a nominal award of $200 (inclusive of GST, if any) for the stove. c) Damage to the walls:
The landlord also gave evidence at the hearing that there was some sort of smell which had permeated the walls. It was unclear what caused the smell. However, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the smell was caused during the tenancy. Given the state of the property at the end of the tenancy, including what appears to be animal faeces left inside the property and that the council received and acted on complaints about the state of the property, I accept that it is more than likely than not that the smell was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved that it was either careless or intentional.
The landlord, with the help of a contractor, initially tried to clean the walls but this did not remove the smell. Eventually the walls were repainted. The landlord has provided invoices for the contractor’s time carrying out this work and the materials.
This claim is proved and I award $590.97 (inclusive of GST – if any) to waterblast the walls and repaint them, this includes 10 hours of the owner’s own time at $25 per hour, cleaning products and the contractor’s charges for this work.
On 17 April 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 15 April 2024, unpaid water invoices and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord advises that this sum has not been paid. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. 1 IR265, General Depreciation Rates, October 2023.
Raouf Hussein Aghaei has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885547 — net $3,298.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 483680 dated 17/04/2024	$1,434.71	Previous order application 483680 dated 17/04/2024
Rubbish removal	$2,152.84	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$880.00	Lawns and Garden work
Removing smell from walls and repainting	$590.97	Removing smell from walls and repainting
Cleaning	$945.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$75.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,298.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,298.96

Order

Tyler Marie Rose Growden must pay Raouf Hussein Aghaei $3,298.96 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 April 2024 under application 4836380.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (6193028-026) to Raouf Hussein Aghaei immediately.
The applications for damage to the carpet and the vinyl are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why she would not attend the hearing and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v)) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
In March 2024, the landlord was contacted by Auckland Council regarding complaints it had received about the state of the property. Auckland Council advised the landlord that in order to avoid a notice being issued under the Property Maintenance and Nuisance Bylaw 2015, he needed to take steps including removing the rubbish and maintaining the overgrown vegetation.
In addition to correspondence from the Council, the landlord has provided photographs which he says were taken immediately before the tenancy for advertising purposes and numerous photographs showing the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided a video of the premises.
The tenant left the premises in a very poor state. The photographs provided show that a significant amount of rubbish was left at the property, some form of animal faeces was left inside the property and the grounds were overgrown.
The landlord has provided invoices for work carried out to clean the property, remove the rubbish and mow the lawns. This claim is proved and I order: $2,152.84 (inclusive of GST – if any) for rubbish removal including purchasing of bins, services of a contractor at $50 per hour to collect the rubbish for removal and fees of a rubbish removal company to collect and dispose of the rubbish; $945.00 (inclusive of GST – if any) for general cleaning; and $880.00(inclusive of GST – if any) to mow the lawns.
The keys were not returned, and I award $75.00 (inclusive of GST, if any) being 3 hours of the owner’s own time at $25 per hour to replace the locks.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for: a) Damaged carpet and damaged vinyl; b) damaged stove; and c) damaged walls.
Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Where the damage is careless, section 49B of the RTA applies. If the damage is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
The tenancy agreement provided by the landlord appears to be missing a number of pages including the insurance statement. I note that the Insurance Statement, as required by sections 13A(2)(b), 45(2B) and (2C) of the RTA forms an important part of the tenancy agreement. This has been demonstrated by Parliament which made a failure to comply with the requirement an infringement offence and liable to a fine or an infringement fee, as specified in Schedule 1B of the RTA. The landlord advised at the hearing that the building is insured but the contents are not, and the excess is $5,000. The landlord also advised that it was the agent at the time who prepared the tenancy agreement, and he advised the agent of the insurance information. a) Damage to carpet and vinyl:
From the photographs provided, I accept that the damage to the carpet and to the vinyl occurred during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved that the damage was intentional.
However, that is not the end of the matter. Before making an order, I must take betterment and depreciation into account. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been if the tenant had not breached their obligations to the landlord. This means the landlord cannot receive compensation that would put them into a better position. To calculate depreciation, it is necessary to take into account the age and general condition of the item when the damage occurred, and the item’s otherwise useful life span.
The Inland Revenue Depreciation Guide provides that carpet has a lifespan of 8 years and vinyl 10 years. 1 The landlord advised that both the carpet and the vinyl were 10 years of age. Both the vinyl and the carpet had exceeded their useful life span and were due to be replaced. For this reason, these claims are dismissed. b) Damage to the stove:
The tenant provided a photograph of a stove which had been disconnected from the wall and left outside by the tenant. The landlord said he purchased the stove at the start of the tenancy for $400 from GST. I make a nominal award of $200 (inclusive of GST, if any) for the stove. c) Damage to the walls:
The landlord also gave evidence at the hearing that there was some sort of smell which had permeated the walls. It was unclear what caused the smell. However, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the smell was caused during the tenancy. Given the state of the property at the end of the tenancy, including what appears to be animal faeces left inside the property and that the council received and acted on complaints about the state of the property, I accept that it is more than likely than not that the smell was caused during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved that it was either careless or intentional.
The landlord, with the help of a contractor, initially tried to clean the walls but this did not remove the smell. Eventually the walls were repainted. The landlord has provided invoices for the contractor’s time carrying out this work and the materials.
This claim is proved and I award $590.97 (inclusive of GST – if any) to waterblast the walls and repaint them, this includes 10 hours of the owner’s own time at $25 per hour, cleaning products and the contractor’s charges for this work.
On 17 April 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 15 April 2024, unpaid water invoices and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord advises that this sum has not been paid. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. 1 IR265, General Depreciation Rates, October 2023.
Raouf Hussein Aghaei has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885547 — Cleanliness at 16 Madison Place, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885547 — Cleanliness at 16 Madison Place, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

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