What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4977308?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Edward Vogel must pay Unity Property Management Ltd As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4977308?

Cleaning: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,434.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $65.52 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $124.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4977308?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4977308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11409696-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4977308?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Edward Vogel must pay Unity Property Management Ltd As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4977308?

Cleaning: $644.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,434.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $65.52 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $124.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4977308?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4977308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11409696-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

86 Muir Avenue, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4977308 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4977308 — net $1,995.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26/6/24	$3,434.20	Rent arrears to 26/6/24
Carpet Cleaning	$644.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$124.75	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$65.52	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,995.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,995.47

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Hu.

There was no appearance for Mr Vogel. The hearing had been adjourned at his request and he had been served with the notice of hearing at his nominated email address. Accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in his absence.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond was transferred to the landlord in part payment of rent arrears pursuant to Tribunal Order, by consent, on 2 December 2024. How much is owed for rent & water rates?

The tenancy ended on 2 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at 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) RTA.

The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord has established in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. It has not been established in evidence that the gardens were not left reasonably tidy, therefore the claim for garden work is dismissed.

The tenant had provided evidence that they kept the premise very clean and tidy during the tenancy and that is not disputed. However, the obligation outlined in section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act is that the property be left clean and tidy when vacated. The photos provided by the landlord show several areas of the property that had not been cleaned including cupboards, the oven, shower, toilet, benches and floor.

I have reduced the amount claimed as the invoice provided covered cleaning that was over and above that statutorily required of tenants. The owner was preparing the home for sale and therefore the property was cleaned with that end in mind. A tenant is not responsible for garden maintenance, or for the cleaning of the outside of windows.

The amount ordered is what is considered reasonable on the basis of the photos provided by the landlord. This includes a clean for the carpet due to stains. The amount also takes into account that this was a four-year tenancy and accordingly some amount of fair wear and tear is to be expected.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for having to repair the carpet which had lifted.

To be successful in such a claim, a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The evidence does not establish that the damage to the carpet was anything over and above fair wear and tear. The carpet was already old when the tenancy started, and I find it more likely than not that it had lifted due to use. There is no evidence that the tenant acted carelessly or intentionally to damage the carpet. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

Because Unity Property Management Ltd As Agent For Wenchao Wang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4977308 — net $1,995.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26/6/24	$3,434.20	Rent arrears to 26/6/24
Carpet Cleaning	$644.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$124.75	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$65.52	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,995.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,995.47

Order

Jonathan Edward Vogel must pay Unity Property Management Ltd As Agent For Wenchao Wang $2,440.47 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Hu.
There was no appearance for Mr Vogel. The hearing had been adjourned at his request and he had been served with the notice of hearing at his nominated email address. Accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond was transferred to the landlord in part payment of rent arrears pursuant to Tribunal Order, by consent, on 2 December 2024. How much is owed for rent & water rates?
The tenancy ended on 2 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at 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) RTA.
The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord has established in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. It has not been established in evidence that the gardens were not left reasonably tidy, therefore the claim for garden work is dismissed.
The tenant had provided evidence that they kept the premise very clean and tidy during the tenancy and that is not disputed. However, the obligation outlined in section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act is that the property be left clean and tidy when vacated. The photos provided by the landlord show several areas of the property that had not been cleaned including cupboards, the oven, shower, toilet, benches and floor.
I have reduced the amount claimed as the invoice provided covered cleaning that was over and above that statutorily required of tenants. The owner was preparing the home for sale and therefore the property was cleaned with that end in mind. A tenant is not responsible for garden maintenance, or for the cleaning of the outside of windows.
The amount ordered is what is considered reasonable on the basis of the photos provided by the landlord. This includes a clean for the carpet due to stains. The amount also takes into account that this was a four-year tenancy and accordingly some amount of fair wear and tear is to be expected.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for having to repair the carpet which had lifted.
To be successful in such a claim, a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The evidence does not establish that the damage to the carpet was anything over and above fair wear and tear. The carpet was already old when the tenancy started, and I find it more likely than not that it had lifted due to use. There is no evidence that the tenant acted carelessly or intentionally to damage the carpet. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
Because Unity Property Management Ltd As Agent For Wenchao Wang has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4977308 — Rent arrears at 86 Muir Avenue, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4977308 — Rent arrears at 86 Muir Avenue, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions