What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4911694 about?

The tribunal order states: Fu'e Muavae and Maseiga Taufau must pay [The landlord/s] $1,888.72

How much money was awarded in case 4911694?

Cleaning: $129.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Excess Water Usage Charges: $174.57 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $244.66 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,804.28 awarded to landlord; Replace Yellow Council Bin: $97.65 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $338.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911694?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911694?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10650083-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4911694 about?

The tribunal order states: Fu'e Muavae and Maseiga Taufau must pay [The landlord/s] $1,888.72

How much money was awarded in case 4911694?

Cleaning: $129.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Excess Water Usage Charges: $174.57 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $244.66 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,804.28 awarded to landlord; Replace Yellow Council Bin: $97.65 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $338.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911694?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911694?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10650083-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4911694 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911694 — net $1,888.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 April 2024	$1,804.28	Rent arrears to 21 April 2024
Excess water usage charges	$174.57	Excess water usage charges
Cleaning	$180.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$129.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$338.12	Rubbish removal
Cleaning curtains	$100.00	Cleaning curtains
Repair light fitting	$244.66	Repair light fitting
Replace yellow Council bin	$97.65	Replace yellow Council bin
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,888.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,888.72

Ms Frew attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenants did not attend.

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices (for excess water usage) which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave areas of the premises (including the carpets and curtains in the lounge and a bedroom) reasonably clean; did not remove all garden rubbish; and did not leave all chattels (the yellow council bin had been taken away due to contamination) as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)- (v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The landlord has established the amount for carpet cleaning and replacement of the Council bin by the production of invoices.

The landlord completed the other cleaning and rubbish removal work herself. She provided an ‘invoice’ for the work which records that she spent 14 hours removing the rubbish at an hourly rate of $35.00. She also provided receipts for two dump fee charges totalling $276.24. The total amount claimed to remove rubbish is $766.24.

I have reduced the amount claimed to remove rubbish. An hourly rate of $25.00 is considered reasonable compensation for a landlord who completes work themselves. The invoice also includes costs to remove rubbish from a garden shed but the end of tenancy report and photographs do not establish that any rubbish or tenant’s goods were left in the garden shed. The landlord did not attend the hearing to give evidence on the claim and Ms Frew did not complete the final inspection and therefore could also not give evidence to support that the tenants did leave rubbish/goods in the garden shed. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $338.12 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the rubbish removal (being 8 hours at $25.00 per hour plus half the dump fees claimed).

The landlord records, in her invoice, that she spent 12 hours cleaning the premises, including the windows, and 9 hours to clean the curtains and to replace linings which she states were necessary because of mould which could not be removed by cleaning.

Ms Frew confirmed that the claim includes cleaning the outside of the windows. However, cleaning of the outside of windows is considered to be a maintenance issue and not the responsibility of a tenant. Doing the best I can on the evidence before me I consider the sum of $180.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the cleaning work. When determining this amount I have taken into account the photographs provided and the end of tenancy report which concludes that “the kitchen, bathroom and toilet need a better clean”.

The claim for cleaning of the curtains and replacing linings is reduced because it is unclear whether all curtains were cleaned by the landlord and there is insufficient evidence to establish that the linings required replacement. The photographs do not show any mould and the report makes no mention of any mould. It simply records that the living room and the two bedroom curtains were “unclean”.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage 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.

The landlord claims the cost to remedy the following damage: • Damaged light fitting • Damage (scrapes and marks) to entry, living room, laundry and bedroom walls

I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I am also satisfied that the damage to the light fitting is beyond reasonable wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. The amount claimed to repair the light fitting has been established by the production of an invoice.

The claim to repair the walls is dismissed because I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that all or even some of the damage to the walls is beyond fair wear and tear for a tenancy that lasted some three years. However, even if this was proven, there is considerably uncertainty on the costs to remedy the damage. The landlord claims, in her invoice, that she spent 12 hours cleaning marks off walls and “painting over marks” but the landlord has also provided an invoice from a company called “The Eco Co Ltd” which claims the cost from the landlord for painting the entry and bedroom walls (as well as other work).

The claim by the landlord for the sum of $315.00 for “admin” work in relation to the tenancy because either some of the work claimed (as set out in the invoice) bears no relation to the claims against the tenant or is considered to be ordinary business cost. Tribunal application fee

The landlord has been mostly successful in her claims and I consider this an appropriate case to award payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

The landlord applied, in her application, 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).

The landlord has been successful in most of her claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlord’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4911694 — net $1,888.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 April 2024	$1,804.28	Rent arrears to 21 April 2024
Excess water usage charges	$174.57	Excess water usage charges
Cleaning	$180.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$129.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$338.12	Rubbish removal
Cleaning curtains	$100.00	Cleaning curtains
Repair light fitting	$244.66	Repair light fitting
Replace yellow Council bin	$97.65	Replace yellow Council bin
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,888.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,888.72

Order

Fu'e Muavae and Maseiga Taufau must pay [The landlord/s] $1,888.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Frew attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices (for excess water usage) which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave areas of the premises (including the carpets and curtains in the lounge and a bedroom) reasonably clean; did not remove all garden rubbish; and did not leave all chattels (the yellow council bin had been taken away due to contamination) as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)- (v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord has established the amount for carpet cleaning and replacement of the Council bin by the production of invoices.
The landlord completed the other cleaning and rubbish removal work herself. She provided an ‘invoice’ for the work which records that she spent 14 hours removing the rubbish at an hourly rate of $35.00. She also provided receipts for two dump fee charges totalling $276.24. The total amount claimed to remove rubbish is $766.24.
I have reduced the amount claimed to remove rubbish. An hourly rate of $25.00 is considered reasonable compensation for a landlord who completes work themselves. The invoice also includes costs to remove rubbish from a garden shed but the end of tenancy report and photographs do not establish that any rubbish or tenant’s goods were left in the garden shed. The landlord did not attend the hearing to give evidence on the claim and Ms Frew did not complete the final inspection and therefore could also not give evidence to support that the tenants did leave rubbish/goods in the garden shed. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $338.12 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the rubbish removal (being 8 hours at $25.00 per hour plus half the dump fees claimed).
The landlord records, in her invoice, that she spent 12 hours cleaning the premises, including the windows, and 9 hours to clean the curtains and to replace linings which she states were necessary because of mould which could not be removed by cleaning.
Ms Frew confirmed that the claim includes cleaning the outside of the windows. However, cleaning of the outside of windows is considered to be a maintenance issue and not the responsibility of a tenant. Doing the best I can on the evidence before me I consider the sum of $180.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the cleaning work. When determining this amount I have taken into account the photographs provided and the end of tenancy report which concludes that “the kitchen, bathroom and toilet need a better clean”.
The claim for cleaning of the curtains and replacing linings is reduced because it is unclear whether all curtains were cleaned by the landlord and there is insufficient evidence to establish that the linings required replacement. The photographs do not show any mould and the report makes no mention of any mould. It simply records that the living room and the two bedroom curtains were “unclean”.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage 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.
The landlord claims the cost to remedy the following damage: • Damaged light fitting • Damage (scrapes and marks) to entry, living room, laundry and bedroom walls
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. I am also satisfied that the damage to the light fitting is beyond reasonable wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. The amount claimed to repair the light fitting has been established by the production of an invoice.
The claim to repair the walls is dismissed because I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that all or even some of the damage to the walls is beyond fair wear and tear for a tenancy that lasted some three years. However, even if this was proven, there is considerably uncertainty on the costs to remedy the damage. The landlord claims, in her invoice, that she spent 12 hours cleaning marks off walls and “painting over marks” but the landlord has also provided an invoice from a company called “The Eco Co Ltd” which claims the cost from the landlord for painting the entry and bedroom walls (as well as other work).
The claim by the landlord for the sum of $315.00 for “admin” work in relation to the tenancy because either some of the work claimed (as set out in the invoice) bears no relation to the claims against the tenant or is considered to be ordinary business cost. Tribunal application fee
The landlord has been mostly successful in her claims and I consider this an appropriate case to award payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
The landlord applied, in her application, 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).
The landlord has been successful in most of her claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlord’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911694 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911694 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions