How much money was awarded in case 4970634?

Compensation: $2,720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970634?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11541367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4970634?

Compensation: $2,720.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970634?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11541367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 20, 5 Millais Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4970634 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970634 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4970634 — net $2,747.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,720.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,747.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,747.00

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

Demetri Munindradasa For Js Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Tracey Mcgrath must pay [The tenant/s] $2,747.00 immediately.

The landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Tribunal held a Case Conference remotely on 9 December 2024. The Tribunal adjourned the proceedings for a face-to-face hearing. Directions were made for the filing of any additional claims by the tenant, any claims by the landlord and any further evidence.

The tenancy commenced on 5 July 2024, but the tenants did not move in until 26 July 2024. The tenancy was for a fixed term due to end on 5 July 2025. The tenancy was furnished so included chattels.

The tenancy ended by agreement on 24 November 2024 although the landlord had offered that the tenant would not be liable for rent after 21 November 2024.

The bond was released to the tenant after the end of the tenancy.

The tenant applied for compensation due to the unclean condition of the tenancy at the commencement.

The landlord applied for compensation for pest treatment, the break lease cost and rent arrears for the period from 22 November 2024 until 20 December 2024. I note that a new tenancy started on 21 December 2024.

The evidence produced by the tenant shows that there were areas in the tenancy that were unclean when they moved in. These areas included the coffee table, rugs, rangehood, oven, cupboard, walls, dryer, bathroom, hot water cupboard, corner in bedroom, carpet stains and toilet. The tenant said that they spent around two weeks cleaning as well as employing a professional cleaner and carpet cleaner.

The landlord reimbursed the tenant for the professional cleaners which amounted to $527.41.

Prior to securing the tenancy the tenants who were living in Wellington had their friend inspect the premises. The friend took photographs and suggested some issues that needed addressing. The tenant had asked for confirmation that the carpets had been professionally cleaned and in an email in response the landlord said that the carpet had been cleaned. It turns out that the carpet had been vacuumed, not professionally cleaned.

The other issue involved the chattels. When the tenant’s friend viewed the property for them the previous tenant was still there. It was therefore not possible to determine what items were included with the tenancy and what were not. In addition, the tenancy agreement recorded the chattels that were included but many more were in the tenancy at the beginning. In addition, it is the tenant’s evidence that some of the items were unclean or damaged and not able to be used.

The tenants spent time cleaning, sorting and boxing up the chattels that were not on the list or were not required. There were nine boxes of stored items which the landlord came to collect. This exercise should not have been necessary. The landlord provided the tenant with an updated chattels list after the boxes were collected.

There were other issues that arose during the tenancy. One was a broken shower rose which took one month to be fixed. The other was discovery of a previous leak from the shower to the bedroom wardrobe. While the Property Manager may not have been aware of this leak it turns out that the owner had been aware. Some paper towels had previously been placed under the carpet presumably to mop up water. When the area was discovered, there was mould on the paper towels, but the carpet was dry.

The tenants had reported having health issues during this tenancy and this may have been due to the mould.

A further issue was in relation to bed bugs when the tenant found one late in the tenancy. The tenant had advised that there had been bed bug residue when they moved in, but the landlord advised the tenant that it was their responsibility to treat the premises for the bed bugs given the date when it was found.

I consider that the tenants should be compensated for the following issues: (a) Their time spent cleaning the premises and arranging for a commercial cleaner and a carpet cleaner (even though they had been advised that it had been carried out); (b) Not being able to fully move in until the cleaning had been completed including loss of the use of the garage for a period; (c) Cleaning and packing the extra, unclean or damaged ‘chattels’; (d) Delay with the repair of the shower; (e) Mould in the bedroom wardrobe.

I have compensated the tenant for the amount originally sought which I consider to be reasonable. Later the tenant sought refund of all the rent paid which would amount to $13,600.00. A refund of the entire rent paid was not reasonable or warranted.

The landlord had offered the tenants to end the fixed term tenancy without a break lease fee on 12 August 2024. The tenant did not accept that offer at the time but in November 2024 requested to end the tenancy. It was agreed that the tenant would not pay a break lease fee and would not be liable for rent after 21 November 2024.

After the tenant moved out the bond was released in full to the tenant.

The landlord claimed for pest treatment, a break lease fee and rent to be paid from 22 November 2024 until the day before the next tenancy commenced.

In relation to the pest treatment the tenant advised that they had treated for the bed bug. There is no evidence that further treatment was required.

In relation to the break lease fee and the further rent payments the landlord acknowledged that there had been agreement until the tenant increased their claim with the Tribunal.

As there was agreement, which the tenant has relied upon, the Tribunal refuses to make an order for the break lease fee and for further rent.

The landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4970634 — net $2,747.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$2,720.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,747.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,747.00