What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4921222?

The tribunal order states: Sheridah Mitchell to pay Chrisostomos Andrea $1,091.87 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4921222?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $1,071.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921222?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10864107-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4921222?

The tribunal order states: Sheridah Mitchell to pay Chrisostomos Andrea $1,091.87 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4921222?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Owed: $1,071.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921222?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10864107-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26A Weka Street, Miramar, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4921222 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4921222 — net $1,091.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 19 April 2024	$1,071.43	Rent owed to 19 April 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,091.87
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,091.87

Sheridah Mitchell to pay Chrisostomos Andrea $1,091.87 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3407420-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Chrisostomos Andrea: $1,091.87 Sheridah Mitchell: $1,908.13

All other clams are dismissed.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord was represented by Mr Dometacas at the hearing. I allowed this because all the emails and text message that I have seen are between Mr Dometacas and the tenant. The tenant asked for an adjournment and this was not allowed. The tenant did not attend the hearing and her application was dismissed.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claim for painting and repairing wall damage was withdrawn at the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

I have considered the emails and I find the tenancy ended on 19 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Rent was paid for the whole tenancy and 9 days was not paid right at the end.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. The landlord had two photos showing some dust and two photos showing dirty marks on one wall and a door frame. It seems most likely to me the house was left in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy. The claim for cleaning 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.

This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The carpet was stained at the end of the tenancy and the landlord paid to have the carpet replaced in four rooms. The landlord provided me with four photos showing stains on the carpet. I have disregarded the photos of the underlay because I have no way of knowing if these marks relate to the stains from this tenancy. There are no photos taken of whole rooms, so I have no context about the size of the stains. I also don’t know from the photos that the stains were in four different rooms. No carpet cleaning was done.

The landlord has a duty to mitigate loss under section 49 RTA. This means the landlord has to take steps to minimise the cost of repairing damage. The first and usual step for landlords where the carpet has stains is to have the carpets cleaned. I am not persuaded by the landlord’s submission that it was quicker to have replacement carpet laid than arrange cleaning.

The claim for replacement carpet is not proved because the landlord has not proved there were stains in four rooms, and the landlord did not take steps to mitigate loss. This claim is dismissed.

The landlord has claimed for two weeks of lost rent. This is not allowed because it would not have taken two weeks to have the carpets cleaned and the stains treated. This claim is dismissed. Other orders

The bond will be refunded.

The landlord has been the most successful party so the tenant should reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when tenants owe rent at the end of the tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4921222 — net $1,091.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent owed to 19 April 2024	$1,071.43	Rent owed to 19 April 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,091.87
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,091.87

Order

Sheridah Mitchell to pay Chrisostomos Andrea $1,091.87 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3407420-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Chrisostomos Andrea: $1,091.87 Sheridah Mitchell: $1,908.13
All other clams are dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord was represented by Mr Dometacas at the hearing. I allowed this because all the emails and text message that I have seen are between Mr Dometacas and the tenant. The tenant asked for an adjournment and this was not allowed. The tenant did not attend the hearing and her application was dismissed.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claim for painting and repairing wall damage was withdrawn at the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

I have considered the emails and I find the tenancy ended on 19 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Rent was paid for the whole tenancy and 9 days was not paid right at the end.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. The landlord had two photos showing some dust and two photos showing dirty marks on one wall and a door frame. It seems most likely to me the house was left in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy. The claim for cleaning 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.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The carpet was stained at the end of the tenancy and the landlord paid to have the carpet replaced in four rooms. The landlord provided me with four photos showing stains on the carpet. I have disregarded the photos of the underlay because I have no way of knowing if these marks relate to the stains from this tenancy. There are no photos taken of whole rooms, so I have no context about the size of the stains. I also don’t know from the photos that the stains were in four different rooms. No carpet cleaning was done.
The landlord has a duty to mitigate loss under section 49 RTA. This means the landlord has to take steps to minimise the cost of repairing damage. The first and usual step for landlords where the carpet has stains is to have the carpets cleaned. I am not persuaded by the landlord’s submission that it was quicker to have replacement carpet laid than arrange cleaning.
The claim for replacement carpet is not proved because the landlord has not proved there were stains in four rooms, and the landlord did not take steps to mitigate loss. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord has claimed for two weeks of lost rent. This is not allowed because it would not have taken two weeks to have the carpets cleaned and the stains treated. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
The bond will be refunded.
The landlord has been the most successful party so the tenant should reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when tenants owe rent at the end of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921222 — Tenancy dispute at 26A Weka Street, Miramar, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921222 — Tenancy dispute at 26A Weka Street, Miramar, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with her 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