What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5002269 about?

The tribunal order states: Roseanna Castle must pay Rentworks Property Management 2018 Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5002269?

Cleaning: $1,112.05 awarded to landlord; Cook Top: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Electrical Fittings: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Remotes: $220.70 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4941081 D…: $1,501.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $418.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $501.69 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,944.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5002269?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5002269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10950753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5002269 about?

The tribunal order states: Roseanna Castle must pay Rentworks Property Management 2018 Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5002269?

Cleaning: $1,112.05 awarded to landlord; Cook Top: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Electrical Fittings: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Remotes: $220.70 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4941081 D…: $1,501.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $418.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $501.69 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,944.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5002269?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5002269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10950753-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

688 Main North Road, Belfast, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5002269 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5002269 — net $6,425.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4941081 dated 1 October 2024	$1,501.86	Previous order application 4941081 dated 1 October 2024
Lock/key replacement	$418.47	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$1,112.05	Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,944.42	Rubbish removal
Cook top	$400.00	Cook top
Electrical fittings	$299.00	Electrical fittings
Garage remotes	$220.70	Garage remotes
Door and blind damage	$501.69	Door and blind damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,425.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,425.19

Both parties attended the hearing. Representatives of the landlord attended in person. The tenant attended by telephone.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background

This tenancy began in March 2021 and ended on 26 August 2024 by order of this Tribunal for abandonment.

The tenant vacated the premises in July 2024.

The tenant accepted that she was not able to deal with end of tenancy tasks at the time. She explained that it was due to circumstances beyond her control.

She said that she had advertised items that were left at the premises for sale, and she was aggrieved that most of them have been removed from the premises and disposed of.

The landlord said that they had tried to contact the tenant about removing the items after she left the premises to no avail and that they waited five weeks before removing and disposing of the items. They also said that the items that were disposed of had no saleable value.

In any case, as I explained to the tenant, if she wishes to claim that the landlord failed to comply with their obligations in respect of goods left at the premises and that it caused her loss, she must make her own application. The Tenant’s Obligations

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. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

Tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent).

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. Claims Cleaning

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and must remove all rubbish.

The tenant agreed that the claim or cleaning and carpet cleaning is reasonable. Rubbish

The claim for rubbish removal is also reasonable. From the photographs taken after the tenant vacated the premises, it seems unlikely that items disposed of had any saleable value, but I need make no finding on that issue because there is no application by the tenant.

The landlord has kept a bed base and a table stored at the premises for the tenant to collect if she wishes to do so. Locks and Keys

The tenant did not return the keys. She said she posted the keys to the landlord’s old address because she was not aware that they had moved offices. She said that the keys were returned to her in the post. In fact, the landlord hasn’t moved offices since the tenancy began. Their address was as stated in the tenancy agreement.

The tenant was in other rental premises previously when the landlord’s offices were in another place. In any case, the tenant was asked to return the keys to the landlord’s drop box. She should either have done that or handed them in to the landlord’s office personally.

The tenant is therefore liable for the cost of changing the locks which I find to be reasonable. Garage Remotes

The garage remotes were missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that she had tried to return them with the keys, and she still had them if they were any use.

The landlord has replaced the remotes. The tenant should have returned them in the same way that she should have returned the keys. The cost of replacing them is reasonable. Door and Blind Damage

There was damage to a door and a blind during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant accepted liability for the blind damage but said that the door was damaged when her brother entered the premises without consent and kicked the door. She said that it happened at the end of July or beginning of August this year and the police were involved.

This was the first time that the landlord has heard anything about this. The tenant confirmed that she did not inform the landlord at the time and until now.

The tenant had no evidence to corroborate her account of how the damage occurred. If her account is correct, I would have expected her to inform the landlord of it at the time. It was plainly in her interests to do, and the landlord could then have done something about verifying it. At the least, there should have been a police record of the incident.

I am not satisfied that the tenant has disproved liability for the damage. The claim for the cost of repairing the door is reasonable and so I have awarded the cost of repairing it and replacing the blind. Cook Top

There was damage to the cook top during the tenancy. It was installed new in 2021 at a cost of approximately $500. The knobs on the cook top were broken and the elements were badly rusted at the end of the tenancy. The electrician advised that it needed to be replaced.

The tenant denied liability and said that the cook top was poor quality and never worked properly. I find that if the tenant has taken reasonable care of it, it would still be working, be in reasonable condition and would not need replacing.

The landlord has replaced it with a ceramic cook top costing $879.70 including installation. That is an improvement on the original. The landlord is not entitled to recover more than the cost of the original cook top. It was three and a half years old and so there should be a deduction of 20% for depreciation. I have therefore awarded the sum of $400 as compensation. Electrical Fittings and Light Bulbs

There was damage to electrical fittings during the tenancy exceeding fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for it. The landlord also had to replace various light bulbs. The sum claimed is reasonable. Pests

The landlord found evidence of mice in the premises which they put down to the unclean state in which was left. Food and rubbish were left in the kitchen for some time after the tenant left. They claim the cost of pest eradication.

Whilst the state of the premises could have attracted mice, they can be present in any case. The evidence did not prove that there was an infestation of mice that needed professional intervention. The situation should have been remedied by cleaning the premises. I therefore dismiss this claim. Evidence Generally

The amounts ordered were proved by the production of photographs and invoices and by evidence given by the landlord’s representatives. The evidence was comprehensive and compelling. Previous Tribunal Order

On 1 October 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for rent arrears to 26 August 2024. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Filing Fee

The landlord has been largely successful and so I have awarded the filing fee. Suppression

I have granted the landlord’s request for name suppression because they have been substantially successful and there are no countervailing reasons not to grant the request.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5002269 — net $6,425.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4941081 dated 1 October 2024	$1,501.86	Previous order application 4941081 dated 1 October 2024
Lock/key replacement	$418.47	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$1,112.05	Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,944.42	Rubbish removal
Cook top	$400.00	Cook top
Electrical fittings	$299.00	Electrical fittings
Garage remotes	$220.70	Garage remotes
Door and blind damage	$501.69	Door and blind damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,425.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,425.19