What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4935893?

The tribunal order states: Reihana Pou must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties

How much money was awarded in case 4935893?

Cleaning: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4867720 D…: $2,764.73 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $176.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935893?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10764710-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4935893?

The tribunal order states: Reihana Pou must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties

How much money was awarded in case 4935893?

Cleaning: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4867720 D…: $2,764.73 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $176.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4935893?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4935893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10764710-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 51 Hills Road, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4935893 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4935893 — net $3,201.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4867720 dated 12/06/2024	$2,764.73	Previous order application 4867720 dated 12/06/2024
Rubbish Removal	$176.81	Rubbish Removal
Carpet Cleaning	$260.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$3,201.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,201.54

Reihana Pou must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale as agent for Grant And Leanne Radovanovich $3,201.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 4867720 dated 12/06/2024$2,764.73 Rubbish Removal$176.81 Carpet Cleaning$260.00 Total award$3,201.54 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,201.54

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 12 June 2024 under application 4867720.

The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

On 12 June 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to that date. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided photographs to show that some rubbish was left in a shed at the property. The tenant said that he did not have time to remove it all. I award the costs claimed for rubbish removal.

However, the claim for cleaning costs is dismissed. The standard required at the end of the tenancy is “reasonably clean”. It is not pristine or commercially clean. The photographs show that some modest cleaning might have been required in the kitchen, but overall the premises appear to be reasonably clean.

The landlord has claimed the cost of re-keying the locks and replacing keys. The landlord claims that it is entitled to the cost of replacement locks because the tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal. There is no such entitlement. The tenant did return the keys in this instance. This aspect of the claim 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.

The landlord claimed three excesses to replace carpet damaged during the tenancy but has not established that the damage occurred during this tenancy, or that the carpet will be replaced. The tenant said there were issues with the carpet at the start of the tenancy. He accepted that two additional stains were added during his tenancy, in one bedroom.

The areas in question are the hall/stairwell and both bedrooms. The ingoing photographs show evidence of staining in all those areas. The landlord said that is because the photographs were taken while the carpet was wet from cleaning. However, the same patterns can be identified in the same areas in the outgoing photographs.

The in-going report dated 23 August 2024 does not have any comment in relation to the floor coverings in the entry or hallway. It does have notes for both bedrooms as follows: a. Bedroom 1 “carpet stained towards right left of room and middle of room. Carpet was professionally cleaned and stains remaining. b. Bedroom 2 “stains on carpet towards right of the window carpets have already been professionally cleaned. Also other stains throughout the carpet.”

Similarly, a cleaning invoice dated 31 August 2023, records: “Wash all carpets as they were majorly stained in lounge, upstairs rooms and on the stairwell. As discussed, some stains still remain.”

The landlord has failed to establish what, if any, carpet damage occurred during this tenancy. The claims for insurance excesses are dismissed.

The tenant accepted that there two stains added during his tenancy. I award $260.00 for stain removal.

As the landlord did not succeed with most of its claims, I have not awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4935893 — net $3,201.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4867720 dated 12/06/2024	$2,764.73	Previous order application 4867720 dated 12/06/2024
Rubbish Removal	$176.81	Rubbish Removal
Carpet Cleaning	$260.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$3,201.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,201.54

Order

Reihana Pou must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale as agent for Grant And Leanne Radovanovich $3,201.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 4867720 dated 12/06/2024$2,764.73 Rubbish Removal$176.81 Carpet Cleaning$260.00 Total award$3,201.54 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,201.54
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 12 June 2024 under application 4867720.
The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
On 12 June 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to that date. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs to show that some rubbish was left in a shed at the property. The tenant said that he did not have time to remove it all. I award the costs claimed for rubbish removal.
However, the claim for cleaning costs is dismissed. The standard required at the end of the tenancy is “reasonably clean”. It is not pristine or commercially clean. The photographs show that some modest cleaning might have been required in the kitchen, but overall the premises appear to be reasonably clean.
The landlord has claimed the cost of re-keying the locks and replacing keys. The landlord claims that it is entitled to the cost of replacement locks because the tenancy was terminated by the Tribunal. There is no such entitlement. The tenant did return the keys in this instance. This aspect of the claim 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.
The landlord claimed three excesses to replace carpet damaged during the tenancy but has not established that the damage occurred during this tenancy, or that the carpet will be replaced. The tenant said there were issues with the carpet at the start of the tenancy. He accepted that two additional stains were added during his tenancy, in one bedroom.
The areas in question are the hall/stairwell and both bedrooms. The ingoing photographs show evidence of staining in all those areas. The landlord said that is because the photographs were taken while the carpet was wet from cleaning. However, the same patterns can be identified in the same areas in the outgoing photographs.
The in-going report dated 23 August 2024 does not have any comment in relation to the floor coverings in the entry or hallway. It does have notes for both bedrooms as follows: a. Bedroom 1 “carpet stained towards right left of room and middle of room. Carpet was professionally cleaned and stains remaining. b. Bedroom 2 “stains on carpet towards right of the window carpets have already been professionally cleaned. Also other stains throughout the carpet.”
Similarly, a cleaning invoice dated 31 August 2023, records: “Wash all carpets as they were majorly stained in lounge, upstairs rooms and on the stairwell. As discussed, some stains still remain.”
The landlord has failed to establish what, if any, carpet damage occurred during this tenancy. The claims for insurance excesses are dismissed.
The tenant accepted that there two stains added during his tenancy. I award $260.00 for stain removal.
As the landlord did not succeed with most of its claims, I have not awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935893 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 6, 51 Hills Road, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4935893 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 6, 51 Hills Road, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions