How much money was awarded in case 4886400?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $473.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $217.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4886400?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4886400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10558730-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4886400?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $473.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $217.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4886400?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4886400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10558730-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 109 Middlepark Road, Sockburn, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4886400 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4886400?

The tribunal order states: Judy Noele Christina Perreau and Maninderpal Singh Kaler must pay Lakhvir

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4886400 — net $388.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$217.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning & tidying gardens	$517.50	Cleaning & tidying gardens
Repair carpets	$473.75	Repair carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$388.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$388.69

Judy Noele Christina Perreau and Maninderpal Singh Kaler must pay Lakhvir Singh and Mandeep Kaur $388.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $840.00 (5377038-009) to Lakhvir Singh and Mandeep Kaur immediately.

The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants applied for payment of the bond and the Tribunal application fee. They also applied for a suppression order.

The landlords cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the landlords entitled to the rent claimed?

The tenants had a fixed term tenancy ending on 21 February 2024. They vacated on 17 February 2024 and rent was paid up to that date. The landlords claim $215.00 being rent until the end of the tenancy on 21 February.

The tenants claim that they had an agreement with the landlords that they did not have to pay rent after they vacated the tenancy on 17 February. However, the landlords dispute that there was any such agreement, and the tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to support that there was.

I therefore find the tenants liable to pay the rent claimed.

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

I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean, did not leave the gardens reasonably tidy, and did not return all keys at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The tenants dispute the cost claimed to clean the premises and tidy the gardens. However, I am also satisfied that the level of work required has been established by the production of photographs and costs are considered reasonable for the work that was required.

The claim for replacement of three keys that were missing at the end of the tenancy is dismissed because the landlords did not provide any evidence to establish the cost to do so.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpets at 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, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

Carelessness is not defined in the Act but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was ‘exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances’.

The landlord claims the cost ($473.75) to repair the carpets in a bedroom and the living room. I am satisfied that the landlords have established that the damage was caused during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenants could not say how the carpet in the bedroom was damaged and therefore they have not disproved liability for this damage.

The tenants claim that the carpet in the living room was damaged by rodents. They claim that they did not realise that there were rodents in the house until approximately two weeks before the tenancy ended when they apparently that they did not realise that there were rodents in the house. They said that they then set traps (it is unclear whether they caught any rodents with these traps).

I find the tenants liable for the damage to the living room carpet. I am satisfied that the damage was caused carelessly. The damage to the carpet (underneath a cupboard) was extensive and is likely to have occurred over a lengthy period of time. I consider that a reasonable prudent tenant would have known earlier than two weeks before the tenancy ended that the house had a rodent problem (because for example, the existence of droppings in the area and possibly noise from the rodent activity) and would then have dealt with the issue with some urgency.

The amount claimed to repair the carpets has been established by the production of an invoice. The Tribunal application fee

The landlords have been successful in their claims and are entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

The tenants applied for a suppression order.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

However, the tenants have been unsuccessful in their claim and their defence to the landlords’ claims. The application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4886400 — net $388.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$217.00	Rent arrears
Cleaning & tidying gardens	$517.50	Cleaning & tidying gardens
Repair carpets	$473.75	Repair carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$388.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$388.69

Order

Judy Noele Christina Perreau and Maninderpal Singh Kaler must pay Lakhvir Singh and Mandeep Kaur $388.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $840.00 (5377038-009) to Lakhvir Singh and Mandeep Kaur immediately.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for payment of the bond and the Tribunal application fee. They also applied for a suppression order.
The landlords cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the landlords entitled to the rent claimed?

The tenants had a fixed term tenancy ending on 21 February 2024. They vacated on 17 February 2024 and rent was paid up to that date. The landlords claim $215.00 being rent until the end of the tenancy on 21 February.
The tenants claim that they had an agreement with the landlords that they did not have to pay rent after they vacated the tenancy on 17 February. However, the landlords dispute that there was any such agreement, and the tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to support that there was.
I therefore find the tenants liable to pay the rent claimed.

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

I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean, did not leave the gardens reasonably tidy, and did not return all keys at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenants dispute the cost claimed to clean the premises and tidy the gardens. However, I am also satisfied that the level of work required has been established by the production of photographs and costs are considered reasonable for the work that was required.
The claim for replacement of three keys that were missing at the end of the tenancy is dismissed because the landlords did not provide any evidence to establish the cost to do so.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpets at 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, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Carelessness is not defined in the Act but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was ‘exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances’.
The landlord claims the cost ($473.75) to repair the carpets in a bedroom and the living room. I am satisfied that the landlords have established that the damage was caused during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenants could not say how the carpet in the bedroom was damaged and therefore they have not disproved liability for this damage.
The tenants claim that the carpet in the living room was damaged by rodents. They claim that they did not realise that there were rodents in the house until approximately two weeks before the tenancy ended when they apparently that they did not realise that there were rodents in the house. They said that they then set traps (it is unclear whether they caught any rodents with these traps).
I find the tenants liable for the damage to the living room carpet. I am satisfied that the damage was caused carelessly. The damage to the carpet (underneath a cupboard) was extensive and is likely to have occurred over a lengthy period of time. I consider that a reasonable prudent tenant would have known earlier than two weeks before the tenancy ended that the house had a rodent problem (because for example, the existence of droppings in the area and possibly noise from the rodent activity) and would then have dealt with the issue with some urgency.
The amount claimed to repair the carpets has been established by the production of an invoice. The Tribunal application fee
The landlords have been successful in their claims and are entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
The tenants applied for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, the tenants have been unsuccessful in their claim and their defence to the landlords’ claims. The application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4886400 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4, 109 Middlepark Road, Sockburn, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4886400 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4, 109 Middlepark Road, Sockburn, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the landlords entitled to the rent claimed?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpets at the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the landlords entitled to the rent claimed?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the carpets at the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions