What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4953805 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Contact Property Management Limited $1,197.29

How much money was awarded in case 4953805?

Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $420.52 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $179.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953805?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953805?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11212937-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4953805 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Contact Property Management Limited $1,197.29

How much money was awarded in case 4953805?

Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $420.52 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $179.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953805?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953805?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11212937-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 70 Mill Road, Kensington, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953805 — Property damage

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953805 — net $1,197.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$330.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$179.77	The claim for water rates is proven.
Cleaning	$40.00	21. There are two photographs of the oven, which needed a clean.
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: and replacement of chattels	$420.52	Repairs: and replacement of chattels
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	32. The landlord has been mostly successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.
Net award	$1,197.29
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,197.29

The tenancy ended on 5 July 2024.

The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, water rates, cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal, repairs, and replacement of chattels.

The hearing took place in Whangarei on 13 December 2024. Mr O’Connor represented the landlord. Ms Wright attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Rent arrears

Ms Wright did not dispute this part of the landlord’s claim. Water rates

The landlord seeks $199.02 for water use from 16 February 2024 to 5 July 2024.

The last WDC water rates invoice was for the period from 14 August 2023 to 15 February 2024. The meter reading as at 15 February 2024 was 1708.

Mr O’Connor provided a photograph of the meter taken at the final inspection. The meter read 1770.

The claim is for 62m3 at $3.21 per m3.

Ms Wright disputed the claim on the grounds that she was away from the property for a long time over this period, and she does not understand how that much water could have been used. Ms Wright questioned whether the photograph that Mr O’Connor provided is of her meter.

There is no evidence of a leak at the property.

I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the photograph that Mr O’Connor provided is of Ms Wright’s meter and that it was taken at the final inspection. Ms Wright’s allegation that Mr O’Connor intentionally presented false evidence is a serious one, and I would require something beyond Ms Wright’s suspicion before making such a finding.

The claim for water rates is proven.

I note that Ms Wright paid the full amount of the previous WDC invoice, $260.00. That figure included a supply charge of $19.25. Tenants do not pay supply or fixed charges for services, only consumption charges. 1 Ms Wright 1 Section 39(1) and 39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) should only have paid $240.75 of that invoice. I have deducted $19.25 from the claim for water use to the end of the tenancy. Cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal

Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. 2

The claim seeks $320.00 for cleaning, $157.00 for carpet cleaning, and $344.70 for rubbish removal (comprised of $100.00 for Mr O’Connor’s time, $132.50 for a contractor and truck, and $112.20 tip fees).

Ms Wright said that she left the premises clean. She left some rubbish stacked in the porch area and she paid a friend to dispose of it for her because she had re-located to another part of the country. Unfortunately, her friend let her down.

People can have genuinely different views about what amounts to “reasonably clean and tidy”. The Tribunal is heavily reliant on photographs or video evidence in cleaning claims.

Mr O’Connor provided very few photographs in support of the cleaning claim, and none that specifically relate to the carpet cleaning claim.

Mr O’Connor emphasised that there were dogs at the property for a period of time.

I agree that this increases the possibility that cleaning or carpet cleaning may be necessary at the end of the tenancy, but it is not proof that the premises failed to meet the standard of reasonably clean and tidy.

There are two photographs of the oven, which needed a clean. I will award $40.00 for cleaning.

I agree with Ms Wright’s argument that Mr O’Connor’s claim for rubbish removal and disposal is excessive for the amount of rubbish left.

It was not necessary to hire a contractor with a truck. The rubbish could have been dealt with using a trailer. Mr O’Connor’s own photograph shows that the rubbish took up less than half of the truck.

I will award $200.00 for rubbish removal and disposal. Repairs and replacement of chattels 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA

Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy. 3 Tenants are liable for damage that they cause, and also for damage that is caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. 4

The claim seeks compensation for: a. Repairs to door, and painting. b. Replacement of passage set (door). c. Replacement of smoke alarm. d. Replacement of several small chattels – smoke alarm, cutlery tray, plugs.

Mr O’Connor provided photographs supporting most parts of this claim.

Mr O’Connor seeks compensation for repairs and painting carried out by himself. Ms Wright disputed this part of the claim on the grounds that Mr O’Connor is paid by the owner of the property and he “should not be paid twice”.

The reasoning is not correct. Mr O’Connor is paid to carry out the landlord’s responsibilities such as carrying out inspections and attending to maintenance work. He is not paid to repair damage caused by the tenant. The tenant must pay for that. Mr O’Connor’s hourly rate is approximately half of that of handyman / contractor.

Ms Wright disputed that the handle was damaged and she disputed the material cost claimed by Mr O’Connor. I am satisfied that Mr O’Connor’s photographs prove the damage. It was not necessary to replace the entire passage set (handles and closing mechanism), not just a door handle.

The costs claimed are proven, and are fair and reasonable. Filing fee, bond

The landlord has been mostly successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00. 5

The landlord will receive $1,197.29 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenant. 3 Section 49B(1)(b) RTA 4 Section 41 RTA 5 Section 102(4)(b) RTA N Blake, 13 December 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953805 — net $1,197.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$330.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$179.77	The claim for water rates is proven.
Cleaning	$40.00	21. There are two photographs of the oven, which needed a clean.
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: and replacement of chattels	$420.52	Repairs: and replacement of chattels
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	32. The landlord has been mostly successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.
Net award	$1,197.29
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,197.29

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Contact Property Management Limited $1,197.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5223682-038) immediately apportioned as follows: Contact Property Management Limited: $1,197.29 [The tenant/s]: $602.71

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 5 July 2024.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, water rates, cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal, repairs, and replacement of chattels.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 13 December 2024. Mr O’Connor represented the landlord. Ms Wright attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Rent arrears
Ms Wright did not dispute this part of the landlord’s claim. Water rates
The landlord seeks $199.02 for water use from 16 February 2024 to 5 July 2024.
The last WDC water rates invoice was for the period from 14 August 2023 to 15 February 2024. The meter reading as at 15 February 2024 was 1708.
Mr O’Connor provided a photograph of the meter taken at the final inspection. The meter read 1770.
The claim is for 62m3 at $3.21 per m3.
Ms Wright disputed the claim on the grounds that she was away from the property for a long time over this period, and she does not understand how that much water could have been used. Ms Wright questioned whether the photograph that Mr O’Connor provided is of her meter.
There is no evidence of a leak at the property.
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the photograph that Mr O’Connor provided is of Ms Wright’s meter and that it was taken at the final inspection. Ms Wright’s allegation that Mr O’Connor intentionally presented false evidence is a serious one, and I would require something beyond Ms Wright’s suspicion before making such a finding.
The claim for water rates is proven.
I note that Ms Wright paid the full amount of the previous WDC invoice, $260.00. That figure included a supply charge of $19.25. Tenants do not pay supply or fixed charges for services, only consumption charges. 1 Ms Wright 1 Section 39(1) and 39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) should only have paid $240.75 of that invoice. I have deducted $19.25 from the claim for water use to the end of the tenancy. Cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. 2
The claim seeks $320.00 for cleaning, $157.00 for carpet cleaning, and $344.70 for rubbish removal (comprised of $100.00 for Mr O’Connor’s time, $132.50 for a contractor and truck, and $112.20 tip fees).
Ms Wright said that she left the premises clean. She left some rubbish stacked in the porch area and she paid a friend to dispose of it for her because she had re-located to another part of the country. Unfortunately, her friend let her down.
People can have genuinely different views about what amounts to “reasonably clean and tidy”. The Tribunal is heavily reliant on photographs or video evidence in cleaning claims.
Mr O’Connor provided very few photographs in support of the cleaning claim, and none that specifically relate to the carpet cleaning claim.
Mr O’Connor emphasised that there were dogs at the property for a period of time.
I agree that this increases the possibility that cleaning or carpet cleaning may be necessary at the end of the tenancy, but it is not proof that the premises failed to meet the standard of reasonably clean and tidy.
There are two photographs of the oven, which needed a clean. I will award $40.00 for cleaning.
I agree with Ms Wright’s argument that Mr O’Connor’s claim for rubbish removal and disposal is excessive for the amount of rubbish left.
It was not necessary to hire a contractor with a truck. The rubbish could have been dealt with using a trailer. Mr O’Connor’s own photograph shows that the rubbish took up less than half of the truck.
I will award $200.00 for rubbish removal and disposal. Repairs and replacement of chattels 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy. 3 Tenants are liable for damage that they cause, and also for damage that is caused by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. 4
The claim seeks compensation for: a. Repairs to door, and painting. b. Replacement of passage set (door). c. Replacement of smoke alarm. d. Replacement of several small chattels – smoke alarm, cutlery tray, plugs.
Mr O’Connor provided photographs supporting most parts of this claim.
Mr O’Connor seeks compensation for repairs and painting carried out by himself. Ms Wright disputed this part of the claim on the grounds that Mr O’Connor is paid by the owner of the property and he “should not be paid twice”.
The reasoning is not correct. Mr O’Connor is paid to carry out the landlord’s responsibilities such as carrying out inspections and attending to maintenance work. He is not paid to repair damage caused by the tenant. The tenant must pay for that. Mr O’Connor’s hourly rate is approximately half of that of handyman / contractor.
Ms Wright disputed that the handle was damaged and she disputed the material cost claimed by Mr O’Connor. I am satisfied that Mr O’Connor’s photographs prove the damage. It was not necessary to replace the entire passage set (handles and closing mechanism), not just a door handle.
The costs claimed are proven, and are fair and reasonable. Filing fee, bond
The landlord has been mostly successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00. 5
The landlord will receive $1,197.29 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenant. 3 Section 49B(1)(b) RTA 4 Section 41 RTA 5 Section 102(4)(b) RTA N Blake, 13 December 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953805 — Property damage at Flat 2, 70 Mill Road, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953805 — Property damage at Flat 2, 70 Mill Road, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions