How much money was awarded in case 5034428?

Cleaning: $870.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $177.52 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034428?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11168525-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5034428?

Cleaning: $870.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $177.52 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034428?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11168525-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034428 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5034428 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 5034428 — net $1,074.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$870.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$177.52	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,074.52
Bond	$2,740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,074.52

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

Andres Nicolas Velez Pulido, Yulia Kolotilina and Juan Pablo Rivera Sahagun to pay [The landlord/s] $1,074.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,740.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,074.52 Andres Nicolas Velez Pulido, Yulia Kolotilina and Juan Pablo Rivera Sahagun: $1,665.48

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants have applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond to cover cleaning and lock replacement. Both parties seek 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). Cleaning

The tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner, or ready for sale. 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 based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord says that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and produced photos taken at the end of the tenancy to support the claim. He arranged for a cleaning company to visit the premises and prepare a quote for cleaning. The quote of $1,300 was accepted and the work was then completed and invoiced. The landlord seeks this amount from the tenants.

The tenants say that they cleaned the premises as best they could but acknowledge that some further cleaning was required especially in the kitchen and bathroom/laundry. However, they consider that the landlord’s cleaning costs are excessive for the cleaning required. The tenants obtained some quotes for cleaning the premises after they vacated the premises ranging from approximately $500-$540. They argue that this supports their argument that the landlord’s claim for cleaning is excessive. While the companies contacted by the tenants provided a standard quote for cleaning premises of the same size, they did not visit the premises to assess the actual work required. The tenants say that while the companies did not visit the premises, they supplied them with the landlord’s photos.

The tenants also argued that parts of the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy. However, they only produced 2 photos of the bathroom floor between the vanity and the shower and near the toilet taken at the start. They also produced a photo of a broken kitchen door dust collector. I note that the property inspection report completed at the start of the tenancy and included in the tenancy agreement records that the premises are in acceptable condition and no cleaning problems are recorded.

After carefully considering all the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and further cleaning was required. However, I note that the landlord’s cleaning invoice covers areas for which the landlord did not supply photos. For example, the invoice covers cleaning of three bedrooms and internal window frames, windowsills, and skirtings and spot cleaning of walls and light fittings throughout the house. However, there were no photos of the bedrooms, no photos of light fittings and only 1 photo showing a dirty window in the lounge. The bulk of the photos were of the kitchen and bathroom/laundry area. For that reason, I have reduced the cleaning costs by approximately one-third to $870 which I consider is reasonable and justified for the cleaning evidenced by the photos. Lock replacement

During the tenancy, one of the bedrooms was sublet for a few weeks without the landlord’s consent and the sub-tenants took the keys with them. The tenants advised the landlord of this and suggested that they change the front door lock as a precaution. The landlord agreed to this. The tenants replaced the door handle and lock mechanism with a similar door handle/lock. They did this work themselves. I am also satisfied on the evidence that they replaced the mechanism “like for like” as they provide a photo of the original mechanism. However, the replacement was not affixed securely. While the landlord did not notice this at the end of the tenancy, the next tenants complained about the lock and asked for it to be fixed. The landlord sent a locksmith who replaced the door handle/lock mechanism with a deadlock mechanism at a cost of $430.22. The landlord wishes to recover this amount from the tenants.

I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenants were liable to replace the lock “like for like” and they did so. However, I accept that the lock was poorly installed and needed to be remedied. Therefore, I consider the tenants are liable for the charges incurred for labour to install a lock properly but I consider they are not liable to pay for a different lock. Therefore, I have reduced the amount claimed by deducting the cost of the lock.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord has substantially succeeded with his claims and is entitled to suppression of his name and identifying details as requested, and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034428 — net $1,074.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$870.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$177.52	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,074.52
Bond	$2,740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,074.52

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

Andres Nicolas Velez Pulido, Yulia Kolotilina and Juan Pablo Rivera Sahagun to pay [The landlord/s] $1,074.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord has substantially succeeded with his claims and is entitled to suppression of his name and identifying details as requested, and to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034428 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034428 — 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