What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4952593 about?

The tribunal order states: Richie Cameron Hadlow to pay Mountain Property NZ Limited as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4952593?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952593?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952593?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11039293-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4952593 about?

The tribunal order states: Richie Cameron Hadlow to pay Mountain Property NZ Limited as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4952593?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952593?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952593?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11039293-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

756 Frankton Road, Frankton, Queenstown 9300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4952593 — Smoke alarms

Order

Richie Cameron Hadlow to pay Mountain Property NZ Limited as agent for Eileen Phillips $220.80 from the bond, being the tenant liability for cleaning.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5870982-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Mountain Property NZ Limited As Agent For Eileen Phillips: $220.80 Richie Cameron Hadlow: $1,979.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought the return of his bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
This tenancy commenced in January 2022 and ended in June 2024; some 2.5 years duration.

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.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The exit report noted: The carpets needs hoovering, Cob webs on the walls and ceiling Heat pump filters. Or cleaned. Dust build up on the fan. Extractor fan and filters not cleaned. Fridge not cleaned properly. Rice in the cupboards. Oven has not been cleaned. Rubbish in the bin, bin not cleaned. Damage to the bedroom door and the wall Stain on the carpet. Shower screen has marks all over it. The vanity needs wiping. Hairs etc on it. Floor needs vacuuming. Washing not cleaned and has a towel in it. Floor needs mopping Cobwebs
In support of the claim the landlord provided exit photos and an invoice for $501.40. That invoice had two line items. The first was for 5.75 hours cleaning at $48.00 per hour. The second was for a carpet clean at $160.00. Both ex- GST.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I have reviewed the list of tasks from the exit report, photos and invoice.
I do not find the invoiced cost of carpet cleaning was proven as a tenant liability. The exit report correctly identifies a need for some vacuuming but no stains or other related carpet issues were raised that required more than that. I do not award the cost of carpet cleaning.
The cleaning effort of 5.75 hours appears greater than that required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The kitchen area certainly needed further cleaning, including the oven and extractor unit. Allowing for that and some other minor issues shown, as well as a vacuum clean, I have determined four hours of the cleaning effort to be tenant liability. That equates to $220.80 awarded towards the invoice cost incurred by the landlord.
The amount ordered is proved. Filing fee
Neither party has had success such that the filing fee should be awarded. I leave each party to carry their own cost of filing. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is not ordered. I see no special circumstances to merit suppression via any discretion I may have.

Order

Richie Cameron Hadlow to pay Mountain Property NZ Limited as agent for Eileen Phillips $220.80 from the bond, being the tenant liability for cleaning.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5870982-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Mountain Property NZ Limited As Agent For Eileen Phillips: $220.80 Richie Cameron Hadlow: $1,979.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant sought the return of his bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
This tenancy commenced in January 2022 and ended in June 2024; some 2.5 years duration.

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.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The exit report noted: The carpets needs hoovering, Cob webs on the walls and ceiling Heat pump filters. Or cleaned. Dust build up on the fan. Extractor fan and filters not cleaned. Fridge not cleaned properly. Rice in the cupboards. Oven has not been cleaned. Rubbish in the bin, bin not cleaned. Damage to the bedroom door and the wall Stain on the carpet. Shower screen has marks all over it. The vanity needs wiping. Hairs etc on it. Floor needs vacuuming. Washing not cleaned and has a towel in it. Floor needs mopping Cobwebs
In support of the claim the landlord provided exit photos and an invoice for $501.40. That invoice had two line items. The first was for 5.75 hours cleaning at $48.00 per hour. The second was for a carpet clean at $160.00. Both ex- GST.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I have reviewed the list of tasks from the exit report, photos and invoice.
I do not find the invoiced cost of carpet cleaning was proven as a tenant liability. The exit report correctly identifies a need for some vacuuming but no stains or other related carpet issues were raised that required more than that. I do not award the cost of carpet cleaning.
The cleaning effort of 5.75 hours appears greater than that required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The kitchen area certainly needed further cleaning, including the oven and extractor unit. Allowing for that and some other minor issues shown, as well as a vacuum clean, I have determined four hours of the cleaning effort to be tenant liability. That equates to $220.80 awarded towards the invoice cost incurred by the landlord.
The amount ordered is proved. Filing fee
Neither party has had success such that the filing fee should be awarded. I leave each party to carry their own cost of filing. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is not ordered. I see no special circumstances to merit suppression via any discretion I may have.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952593 — Smoke alarms at 756 Frankton Road, Frankton, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952593 — Smoke alarms at 756 Frankton Road, Frankton, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions