What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5001751?

The tribunal order states: Maree Taplin to pay Tepamu Enterprises Limited and Faye & Eric Dunn

How much money was awarded in case 5001751?

Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent For 2 Days: $114.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $46.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001751?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11416963-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5001751?

The tribunal order states: Maree Taplin to pay Tepamu Enterprises Limited and Faye & Eric Dunn

How much money was awarded in case 5001751?

Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent For 2 Days: $114.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $46.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5001751?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5001751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11416963-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Short Street, Waimate, RD 8, Waimate 7978 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5001751 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

9 Short Street, Waimate, RD 8, Waimate 7978 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5001751 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001751 — net $889.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent for 2 days	$114.00	Rent for 2 days
Repair lounge wall	$276.00	Repair lounge wall
Repair wood burner glass and seals	$50.00	Repair wood burner glass and seals
Replace oven tray, 3 LED bulbs, smoke alarm	$46.00	Replace oven tray, 3 LED bulbs, smoke alarm
Clean stove	$276.00	Clean stove
Cleaning: 4 hours labour @ per hour	$100.00	Cleaning: 4 hours labour @ per hour
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$889.00
Bond	$1,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$889.00

Claims and awards for application 5001751 — net $889.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent for 2 days

Amount: $114.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent for 2 days

Repair lounge wall

Amount: $276.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair lounge wall

Repair wood burner glass and seals

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair wood burner glass and seals

Replace oven tray, 3 LED bulbs, smoke alarm

Amount: $46.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace oven tray, 3 LED bulbs, smoke alarm

Clean stove

Amount: $276.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Clean stove

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Maree Taplin to pay Tepamu Enterprises Limited and Faye & Eric Dunn $889.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s claims for the replacement of glass in the ranch slider ($152.61) and for a hearth repair ($36.00) are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5437112-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Tepamu Enterprises Limited and Faye & Eric Dunn: $889.00 Maree Taplin: $411.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, part refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Claims accepted by tenant
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for 2 days’ rent, the repair of the lounge wall, the repair of the wood burner glass and seals, and the replacement cost of an oven tray, LED light bulbs and a smoke alarm. I have marked those claims with *.

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 and remove all rubbish - see section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has claimed for 6 hours’ cleaning at $35.00 per hour.
Both parties provided photos in evidence to support their respective positions.
The photos show that some areas of the premises were not left reasonably clean. Objectively viewed, the landlord was required to so some cleaning.
The Tribunal compensates landlord labour for cleaning at the rate of $25.00 per hour usually. The landlord has claimed for 6 hours.
A tenant’s responsibility is to leave the premises reasonably clean, not clean to a standard where another tenancy can immediately commence.
I have reduced the landlord’s claim for labour to 4 hours to reflect that and also to account for the fact that exterior window cleaning is not a tenant responsibility. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
I find proved the landlord’s claim for oven cleaning. The tenant accepted that the oven needed cleaning. The photos show that. The tenant disputed the cost.
When a tenant does not leave the premises reasonably clean, the landlord is entitled to have that work done. The invoice produced in evidence might seem high to the tenant, but it reflects the cost of professional oven cleaning. Generally, the landlord was careful to limit the costs charged to the tenant for cleaning.
I dismiss the claim for the hearth repair. No invoice was produced to prove the claimed cost.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 landlord noticed that the glass in the ranch slider had slipped away from the frame. The landlord gave evidence that the glazier believed that the glass had been replaced but with a slightly smaller piece of glass causing a gap.
The tenant said she did not notice any gap in the glass during the tenancy, nor did anything happen to cause the gap in the glass, other than possibly an earthquake causing some movement. The landlord checked that with the glazier who felt it an unlikely explanation.
The tenant produced an invoice for a separate glass repair she had done during the tenancy. She said had she damaged the ranch slider glass she would have had that repaired as well.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she neither caused nor knew about the gap in the ranch slider glass. How the gap in the glass appeared is simply unknown. I dismiss this claim.
As the application is mostly successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. Result
The landlord’s accepted and proven claims amount to $889.00. The bond will be split between the parties - $889.00 to the landlord and $411.00 to the tenant. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5001751 — net $889.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent for 2 days	$114.00	Rent for 2 days
Repair lounge wall	$276.00	Repair lounge wall
Repair wood burner glass and seals	$50.00	Repair wood burner glass and seals
Replace oven tray, 3 LED bulbs, smoke alarm	$46.00	Replace oven tray, 3 LED bulbs, smoke alarm
Clean stove	$276.00	Clean stove
Cleaning: 4 hours labour @ per hour	$100.00	Cleaning: 4 hours labour @ per hour
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$889.00
Bond	$1,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$889.00

Claims and awards for application 5001751 — net $889.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent for 2 days

Amount: $114.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent for 2 days

Repair lounge wall

Amount: $276.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair lounge wall

Repair wood burner glass and seals

Amount: $50.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair wood burner glass and seals

Replace oven tray, 3 LED bulbs, smoke alarm

Amount: $46.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace oven tray, 3 LED bulbs, smoke alarm

Clean stove

Amount: $276.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Clean stove

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Maree Taplin to pay Tepamu Enterprises Limited and Faye & Eric Dunn $889.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s claims for the replacement of glass in the ranch slider ($152.61) and for a hearth repair ($36.00) are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,300.00 (5437112-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Tepamu Enterprises Limited and Faye & Eric Dunn: $889.00 Maree Taplin: $411.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, part refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Claims accepted by tenant
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claims for 2 days’ rent, the repair of the lounge wall, the repair of the wood burner glass and seals, and the replacement cost of an oven tray, LED light bulbs and a smoke alarm. I have marked those claims with *.

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 and remove all rubbish - see section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has claimed for 6 hours’ cleaning at $35.00 per hour.
Both parties provided photos in evidence to support their respective positions.
The photos show that some areas of the premises were not left reasonably clean. Objectively viewed, the landlord was required to so some cleaning.
The Tribunal compensates landlord labour for cleaning at the rate of $25.00 per hour usually. The landlord has claimed for 6 hours.
A tenant’s responsibility is to leave the premises reasonably clean, not clean to a standard where another tenancy can immediately commence.
I have reduced the landlord’s claim for labour to 4 hours to reflect that and also to account for the fact that exterior window cleaning is not a tenant responsibility. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
I find proved the landlord’s claim for oven cleaning. The tenant accepted that the oven needed cleaning. The photos show that. The tenant disputed the cost.
When a tenant does not leave the premises reasonably clean, the landlord is entitled to have that work done. The invoice produced in evidence might seem high to the tenant, but it reflects the cost of professional oven cleaning. Generally, the landlord was careful to limit the costs charged to the tenant for cleaning.
I dismiss the claim for the hearth repair. No invoice was produced to prove the claimed cost.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 landlord noticed that the glass in the ranch slider had slipped away from the frame. The landlord gave evidence that the glazier believed that the glass had been replaced but with a slightly smaller piece of glass causing a gap.
The tenant said she did not notice any gap in the glass during the tenancy, nor did anything happen to cause the gap in the glass, other than possibly an earthquake causing some movement. The landlord checked that with the glazier who felt it an unlikely explanation.
The tenant produced an invoice for a separate glass repair she had done during the tenancy. She said had she damaged the ranch slider glass she would have had that repaired as well.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she neither caused nor knew about the gap in the ranch slider glass. How the gap in the glass appeared is simply unknown. I dismiss this claim.
As the application is mostly successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. Result
The landlord’s accepted and proven claims amount to $889.00. The bond will be split between the parties - $889.00 to the landlord and $411.00 to the tenant. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought an order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001751 — Cleanliness at 9 Short Street, Waimate, RD 8, Waimate 7978

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5001751 — Cleanliness at 9 Short Street, Waimate, RD 8, Waimate 7978

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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