What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4908559?

The tribunal order states: Brad Darell Hollinshead and Nina Michele Ball to pay Whyte Professional

How much money was awarded in case 4908559?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Garage/ Bins /Weeds: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908559?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10802722-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4908559?

The tribunal order states: Brad Darell Hollinshead and Nina Michele Ball to pay Whyte Professional

How much money was awarded in case 4908559?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Garage/ Bins /Weeds: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908559?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10802722-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11C Bleakley Place, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4908559 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908559 — net $1,254.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$350.00	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$184.00	Carpet Cleaning
Garage/ bins /weeds	$200.00	Garage/ bins /weeds
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Pest control	$250.00	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,254.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,254.44

Order

Brad Darell Hollinshead and Nina Michele Ball to pay Whyte Professional Property Limited as Agent for NDDV Investments Limited $1,254.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (5465331-011) as follows: Whyte Professional Property - $1,254.44 Brad Hollingshead and Nina Ball - $985.56.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The tenants applied for refund of their bond after the tenancy ended. The landlord then filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Although the tenant’s application was filed first, in substance this is an application by the landlord for compensation from the tenants’ bond, so the hearing proceeded with the landlord presenting its compensation claims and the tenants responding to those claims.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 May 2024, one day before the end of the final rent week which the tenants had paid in advance. An $80.00 credit was due to the tenants for the last day. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that credit has been paid to the tenants.
The tenant paid 2 week’s rent in advance when the tenancy began and thought that a further week’s rent should be refunded to them. The rent summary provided by the landlord shows that the first 2 week rent payment paid the rent from the start of the tenancy on 27 July 2023 to 9 August 2023. The next rent payment was made on 9 August 2023 so from then on the tenants were paying the rent weekly in advance. The last rent payment was made on 30 April 2024 which paid the rent to 8 May 2024, one day after the tenancy ended. I am satisfied that no further rent refund is owed to the tenants.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
Exit inspection photographs show than in some respects the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. A recycling bit was left with non-recyclable rubbish. The green bin was left unclean.
The landlord has provided an invoice for cleaning work done, which I accept is a reasonable claim for bringing the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord arranged for the bins to be cleaned. The tenants’ evidence indicates that the rubbish bins were washed and left reasonable, so the landlords claim should be limited to the cost of cleaning the recycling and green waste bins.
The invoice includes the cost of work to remove a stain from the concrete drive in front of the garage, clearing weeds and sweeping out the garage. The compensation awarded is adjusted for those factors.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord is entitled to compensation for the cost of key replacement. I do not find it proved that the cost of replacing the bathroom lock, included in the invoice, was other than wear and tear. The amount awarded is reduced accordingly.
The new tenants of the premises e-mailed the landlord on 31 May 2024 to say that there was a problem with a flea infestation at the premises. The new tenants have no pets. With the landlord’s agreement, the tenants had a cat living at the property, which was unfortunately run over before the end of the tenancy. The tenants say that for that reason, the flea infestation could not have resulted from their cat living at the premises.
The Tribunal is required to determine whether the claims are proven, not beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities i.e.. more likely than not. There is no dispute that a cat was living at the premises until not long before the tenancy ended, there is no evidence of any other animal having been there since and there is evidence of a flea problem from soon after a new tenancy started. Those factors persuade me that it is more likely than not that the flea infestation arose from the tenant’s cat and the tenant should compensate the landlords for the cost of the flea treatment that was necessary.
The landlord claims reimbursement for the cost of our plumber’s call out. The tenants had contacted the property manager during the evening to say that they thought that their gas cook top was faulty and causing fire. The property manager urgently arranged for a plumber to visit, to then be told that the plumber could not help because it was an electric a cook top. The landlord then arrange for an electrician to repair it.
The landlord says that the tenants were at fault for advising her that it was a gas cook top not electric, resulting in the unnecessary plumber’s call out fee.
The fundamental obligation on the tenants was to advise the landlord of the need for the cooker to be repaired, which they did (see s.40(1)(d).
This is the landlord’s property and the landlord can be taken to know what chattels it has provided with the premises. I do not find it proved that the tenants breached any obligation owed to the landlord under the RTA to be mistaken about the nature of that appliance. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord also claims compensation for loss of: a. a bathroom towel fitting; b. a plastic foot from a dining chair; c. a short piece of waterproofing on the bottom of the shower door.
Those items have not been replaced so no loss to the landlord has been incurred. There is no evidence to suggest anything other than normal wear and tear as a cause. Those claims are declined.
As the landlord has had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908559 — net $1,254.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$350.00	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$184.00	Carpet Cleaning
Garage/ bins /weeds	$200.00	Garage/ bins /weeds
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Pest control	$250.00	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,254.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,254.44

Order

Brad Darell Hollinshead and Nina Michele Ball to pay Whyte Professional Property Limited as Agent for NDDV Investments Limited $1,254.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (5465331-011) as follows: Whyte Professional Property - $1,254.44 Brad Hollingshead and Nina Ball - $985.56.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The tenants applied for refund of their bond after the tenancy ended. The landlord then filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Although the tenant’s application was filed first, in substance this is an application by the landlord for compensation from the tenants’ bond, so the hearing proceeded with the landlord presenting its compensation claims and the tenants responding to those claims.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 7 May 2024, one day before the end of the final rent week which the tenants had paid in advance. An $80.00 credit was due to the tenants for the last day. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that credit has been paid to the tenants.
The tenant paid 2 week’s rent in advance when the tenancy began and thought that a further week’s rent should be refunded to them. The rent summary provided by the landlord shows that the first 2 week rent payment paid the rent from the start of the tenancy on 27 July 2023 to 9 August 2023. The next rent payment was made on 9 August 2023 so from then on the tenants were paying the rent weekly in advance. The last rent payment was made on 30 April 2024 which paid the rent to 8 May 2024, one day after the tenancy ended. I am satisfied that no further rent refund is owed to the tenants.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
Exit inspection photographs show than in some respects the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. A recycling bit was left with non-recyclable rubbish. The green bin was left unclean.
The landlord has provided an invoice for cleaning work done, which I accept is a reasonable claim for bringing the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord arranged for the bins to be cleaned. The tenants’ evidence indicates that the rubbish bins were washed and left reasonable, so the landlords claim should be limited to the cost of cleaning the recycling and green waste bins.
The invoice includes the cost of work to remove a stain from the concrete drive in front of the garage, clearing weeds and sweeping out the garage. The compensation awarded is adjusted for those factors.
The tenant did not return the keys. The landlord is entitled to compensation for the cost of key replacement. I do not find it proved that the cost of replacing the bathroom lock, included in the invoice, was other than wear and tear. The amount awarded is reduced accordingly.
The new tenants of the premises e-mailed the landlord on 31 May 2024 to say that there was a problem with a flea infestation at the premises. The new tenants have no pets. With the landlord’s agreement, the tenants had a cat living at the property, which was unfortunately run over before the end of the tenancy. The tenants say that for that reason, the flea infestation could not have resulted from their cat living at the premises.
The Tribunal is required to determine whether the claims are proven, not beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities i.e.. more likely than not. There is no dispute that a cat was living at the premises until not long before the tenancy ended, there is no evidence of any other animal having been there since and there is evidence of a flea problem from soon after a new tenancy started. Those factors persuade me that it is more likely than not that the flea infestation arose from the tenant’s cat and the tenant should compensate the landlords for the cost of the flea treatment that was necessary.
The landlord claims reimbursement for the cost of our plumber’s call out. The tenants had contacted the property manager during the evening to say that they thought that their gas cook top was faulty and causing fire. The property manager urgently arranged for a plumber to visit, to then be told that the plumber could not help because it was an electric a cook top. The landlord then arrange for an electrician to repair it.
The landlord says that the tenants were at fault for advising her that it was a gas cook top not electric, resulting in the unnecessary plumber’s call out fee.
The fundamental obligation on the tenants was to advise the landlord of the need for the cooker to be repaired, which they did (see s.40(1)(d).
This is the landlord’s property and the landlord can be taken to know what chattels it has provided with the premises. I do not find it proved that the tenants breached any obligation owed to the landlord under the RTA to be mistaken about the nature of that appliance. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord also claims compensation for loss of: a. a bathroom towel fitting; b. a plastic foot from a dining chair; c. a short piece of waterproofing on the bottom of the shower door.
Those items have not been replaced so no loss to the landlord has been incurred. There is no evidence to suggest anything other than normal wear and tear as a cause. Those claims are declined.
As the landlord has had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908559 — Cleanliness at 11C Bleakley Place, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908559 — Cleanliness at 11C Bleakley Place, Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions