How much money was awarded in case 4966553?

Cleaning: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $600.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966553?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11445948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4966553?

Cleaning: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $600.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966553?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11445948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

72 Moorhouse Street, Ross, Ross 7812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4966553 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4966553 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966553 — net $159.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$759.00		Cleaning
Compensation – loss of enjoyment		$600.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment
Total award	$759.00	$600.00
Net award	$159.00
Bond	$590.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$159.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Sinead Robinson to pay [The landlord/s] $159.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $590.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $159.00 Sinead Robinson: $431.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s delay to do repairs and the loss of enjoyment due to a section of the fence falling down after being hit with a digger contracted by the neighbour.

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 (RTA).

The landlord produced photos in evidence as did the tenant showing the condition of the premises at the start and the end of the tenancy.

Claims for cleaning are not determined by the subjective opinion of either party. The Tribunal considers the evidence produced objectively when deciding a claim for compensation for cleaning.

I have considered the evidence the parties gave, and the documentary evidence produced. I find that the tenant did not meet her statutory responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean. The landlord was required to have additional cleaning done, having offered the opportunity to the tenant to do it.

The tenant challenged the amount of the cleaning invoice including the travel disbursement. I find there is no basis to reduce the claim for cleaning; the amounts claimed are objectively reasonable for a commercial cleaning firm. Compensation for loss of enjoyment

The tenant gave evidence that the neighbour employed a digger to do section clearing work. The digger operator pushed down a large section of the fence between the tenancy premises and the neighbouring premises.

The incident occurred on or about 6 July 2023. The tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord to repair the fence on 13 January 2024. A temporary fence was put in place around the end of February/early March 2024.

Other repairs were delayed, including window latches and the clothesline, and less so, the fire box door.

Compensation is not punitive; it recognises a loss, in this case a loss of enjoyment. The tenant had children and their enjoyment of the back yard area was diminished by the fence being down (and potentially dangerous).

With the other repairs there was a delay caused by the communication between the owner (also the landlord) and their agent.

I accept that the tenant experienced a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy mainly due to the damaged fence, but also due to the delayed repairs to the window latches and the clothesline.

The tenant raised issues about what she felt was rude behaviour by the property management company staff. The Tribunal does not generally award compensation for rudeness or poor behaviour or for parties just not getting along.

The tenant also raised issues about compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Due to the commencement date of this tenancy, which was initially fixed but then became periodic by operation of the provisions of the RTA, there is no compliance issue with the HHS that the Tribunal needs to determine. Result

The landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is proved in the amount of $759.00. From that will be deducted $600.00 for the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the delay in repairing the fence and (the lesser) delay in other repairs being completed.

The bond will therefore be split between the parties - $159.00 to the landlord and $431.00 to the tenant.

I make no award of the filing fees. Each party has succeeded. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression

The tenant did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought name suppression and is entitled to an order since its application has been successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966553 — net $159.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$759.00		Cleaning
Compensation – loss of enjoyment		$600.00	Compensation – loss of enjoyment
Total award	$759.00	$600.00
Net award	$159.00
Bond	$590.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$159.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Sinead Robinson to pay [The landlord/s] $159.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $590.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $159.00 Sinead Robinson: $431.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation for the landlord’s delay to do repairs and the loss of enjoyment due to a section of the fence falling down after being hit with a digger contracted by the neighbour.

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 (RTA).
The landlord produced photos in evidence as did the tenant showing the condition of the premises at the start and the end of the tenancy.
Claims for cleaning are not determined by the subjective opinion of either party. The Tribunal considers the evidence produced objectively when deciding a claim for compensation for cleaning.
I have considered the evidence the parties gave, and the documentary evidence produced. I find that the tenant did not meet her statutory responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean. The landlord was required to have additional cleaning done, having offered the opportunity to the tenant to do it.
The tenant challenged the amount of the cleaning invoice including the travel disbursement. I find there is no basis to reduce the claim for cleaning; the amounts claimed are objectively reasonable for a commercial cleaning firm. Compensation for loss of enjoyment
The tenant gave evidence that the neighbour employed a digger to do section clearing work. The digger operator pushed down a large section of the fence between the tenancy premises and the neighbouring premises.
The incident occurred on or about 6 July 2023. The tenant served a 14-day notice on the landlord to repair the fence on 13 January 2024. A temporary fence was put in place around the end of February/early March 2024.
Other repairs were delayed, including window latches and the clothesline, and less so, the fire box door.
Compensation is not punitive; it recognises a loss, in this case a loss of enjoyment. The tenant had children and their enjoyment of the back yard area was diminished by the fence being down (and potentially dangerous).
With the other repairs there was a delay caused by the communication between the owner (also the landlord) and their agent.
I accept that the tenant experienced a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy mainly due to the damaged fence, but also due to the delayed repairs to the window latches and the clothesline.
The tenant raised issues about what she felt was rude behaviour by the property management company staff. The Tribunal does not generally award compensation for rudeness or poor behaviour or for parties just not getting along.
The tenant also raised issues about compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Due to the commencement date of this tenancy, which was initially fixed but then became periodic by operation of the provisions of the RTA, there is no compliance issue with the HHS that the Tribunal needs to determine. Result
The landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is proved in the amount of $759.00. From that will be deducted $600.00 for the tenant’s loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to the delay in repairing the fence and (the lesser) delay in other repairs being completed.
The bond will therefore be split between the parties - $159.00 to the landlord and $431.00 to the tenant.
I make no award of the filing fees. Each party has succeeded. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought name suppression and is entitled to an order since its application has been successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966553 — Cleanliness at 72 Moorhouse Street, Ross, Ross 7812

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966553 — Cleanliness at 72 Moorhouse Street, Ross, Ross 7812

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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