What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4971575 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,029.00 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4971575?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $276.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971575?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971575?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11036648-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4971575 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,029.00 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4971575?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $276.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971575?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971575?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11036648-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4971575 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4971575 — net $1,029.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$450.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$276.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal and section tidying	$276.00	Rubbish removal and section tidying
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,029.00
Bond	$1,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,029.00

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,029.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,029.00 [The tenant/s]: $11.00

Reasons

[The landlord/s representative] attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. [The tenant] also attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord said there was cleaning required at the end of the tenancy, which included grimy walls, light fittings, switches, doors and door handles, a dirty warming drawer in the oven and other issues. The landlord provided pre-entry and post-tenancy inspection reports showing the condition of the property at the start and at the end of the tenancy. The landlord pointed out photographs showing the grimy and dirty condition of several walls, doors, light fittings and switches, the dirty oven warming drawer and other items. The tenant said she and some friends had cleaned the property to the best of their ability but acknowledged some of the dirty hand marks highlighted by the landlord may not have come off in their cleaning, and also that the warming drawer in the oven may have had dirty food slide into it, without the tenant knowing.
The landlord further indicated the carpets needed cleaning as there were carpet stains in the property, especially in the lounge. The landlord said there was an odour of animals in the carpet at the end of the tenancy so that the carpet required special treatment for this. The tenant admitted there may have been some carpet stains in the lounge at the end of the tenancy, as she had lived there for 2 years but she disputed that there was an odour in the carpet from animals. The tenant said she had not kept any pets at the property and the only animals that visited stayed outside, apart from her sister’s cat who came in once and who she then shooed outside. The tenant said when she moved into the property there was a strong smell of dog in the carpet, as she believed the previous tenant had a dog. The landlord said there had been conversations between their property manager and the tenant about not having pets, visiting or otherwise, come inside the property. The tenant denied this had been the case, apart from one conversation with a property manager about her sister’s cat which had come inside one time and then had been made to leave. The landlord did not provide any written evidence of these conversations about pets with the tenant and, given the tenant’s evidence that she believed the previous tenant had a dog, and that there were large fans drying out the carpet when she came to view the property, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove there was an odour in the carpet from animals that had been caused by this tenant.
However, the tenant acknowledged there were carpet stains that needed removal from the tenancy period, which were shown in the inspection report. The landlord claimed $450.00 for the carpet clean and said this had been a set price they were charged for any carpet clean by the company.
The tenant did not dispute the amount claimed for the carpet cleaning, being $450.00, nor did she dispute the cleaning claim for $276.00, nor the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal and tidying of the section at the end of the tenancy for $276.00. Given this, I award the landlord $450.00 for carpet cleaning, $276.00 for cleaning and $276.00 for rubbish removal and tidying of the section at the end of the tenancy. Refund of the bond
The bond originally paid to the landlord was $2,080.00. The Bond Centre currently holds a bond balance of $1,040.00. The tenant said she disputed the refund bond claim because another tenant, who left the tenancy on 24 January 2023, had been paid half the bond by the landlord, in the amount of $1,040.00, but the tenant had also paid the other tenant half the bond of $1,040.00 from her own funds when the other tenant left. Thus, she said the other tenant had been overpaid $1,040.00. There was a discussion about the tenant obtaining legal advice about her options in potentially recovering any funds from the other tenant. However, the Tribunal can only deal with the landlord’s claim for refund of the bond in this application.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,029.00 from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,029.00 [The tenant/s]: $11.00 Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. The landlord is entitled to name suppression, as they have been successful with the claim. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that 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 tenant said she made attempts to clean the property at the end of the tenancy, to the best of her ability, indicating she has physical disabilities which limit some activities, and so arranged for help with this. Whilst there were some dirty areas left at the end of the tenancy, the photographs indicated the majority of the property was cleared and tidied. It has obviously been a stressful time for the tenant, dealing with the other tenant and bond refund issues. She agreed with the landlord’s claims, just disputing the issue of odour in the carpet from animals. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4971575 — net $1,029.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$450.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$276.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal and section tidying	$276.00	Rubbish removal and section tidying
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,029.00
Bond	$1,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,029.00

Order

[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,029.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,029.00 [The tenant/s]: $11.00

Reasons

[The landlord/s representative] attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. [The tenant] also attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord said there was cleaning required at the end of the tenancy, which included grimy walls, light fittings, switches, doors and door handles, a dirty warming drawer in the oven and other issues. The landlord provided pre-entry and post-tenancy inspection reports showing the condition of the property at the start and at the end of the tenancy. The landlord pointed out photographs showing the grimy and dirty condition of several walls, doors, light fittings and switches, the dirty oven warming drawer and other items. The tenant said she and some friends had cleaned the property to the best of their ability but acknowledged some of the dirty hand marks highlighted by the landlord may not have come off in their cleaning, and also that the warming drawer in the oven may have had dirty food slide into it, without the tenant knowing.
The landlord further indicated the carpets needed cleaning as there were carpet stains in the property, especially in the lounge. The landlord said there was an odour of animals in the carpet at the end of the tenancy so that the carpet required special treatment for this. The tenant admitted there may have been some carpet stains in the lounge at the end of the tenancy, as she had lived there for 2 years but she disputed that there was an odour in the carpet from animals. The tenant said she had not kept any pets at the property and the only animals that visited stayed outside, apart from her sister’s cat who came in once and who she then shooed outside. The tenant said when she moved into the property there was a strong smell of dog in the carpet, as she believed the previous tenant had a dog. The landlord said there had been conversations between their property manager and the tenant about not having pets, visiting or otherwise, come inside the property. The tenant denied this had been the case, apart from one conversation with a property manager about her sister’s cat which had come inside one time and then had been made to leave. The landlord did not provide any written evidence of these conversations about pets with the tenant and, given the tenant’s evidence that she believed the previous tenant had a dog, and that there were large fans drying out the carpet when she came to view the property, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove there was an odour in the carpet from animals that had been caused by this tenant.
However, the tenant acknowledged there were carpet stains that needed removal from the tenancy period, which were shown in the inspection report. The landlord claimed $450.00 for the carpet clean and said this had been a set price they were charged for any carpet clean by the company.
The tenant did not dispute the amount claimed for the carpet cleaning, being $450.00, nor did she dispute the cleaning claim for $276.00, nor the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal and tidying of the section at the end of the tenancy for $276.00. Given this, I award the landlord $450.00 for carpet cleaning, $276.00 for cleaning and $276.00 for rubbish removal and tidying of the section at the end of the tenancy. Refund of the bond
The bond originally paid to the landlord was $2,080.00. The Bond Centre currently holds a bond balance of $1,040.00. The tenant said she disputed the refund bond claim because another tenant, who left the tenancy on 24 January 2023, had been paid half the bond by the landlord, in the amount of $1,040.00, but the tenant had also paid the other tenant half the bond of $1,040.00 from her own funds when the other tenant left. Thus, she said the other tenant had been overpaid $1,040.00. There was a discussion about the tenant obtaining legal advice about her options in potentially recovering any funds from the other tenant. However, the Tribunal can only deal with the landlord’s claim for refund of the bond in this application.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $1,029.00 from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,029.00 [The tenant/s]: $11.00 Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. The landlord is entitled to name suppression, as they have been successful with the claim. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that 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 tenant said she made attempts to clean the property at the end of the tenancy, to the best of her ability, indicating she has physical disabilities which limit some activities, and so arranged for help with this. Whilst there were some dirty areas left at the end of the tenancy, the photographs indicated the majority of the property was cleared and tidied. It has obviously been a stressful time for the tenant, dealing with the other tenant and bond refund issues. She agreed with the landlord’s claims, just disputing the issue of odour in the carpet from animals. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971575 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971575 — Cleanliness

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