What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5038068 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5038068?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5038068?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5038068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11156919-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5038068 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5038068?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5038068?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5038068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11156919-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Hataitai Road, Hataitai, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5038068 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5038068 — net $147.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$120.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$147.00
Bond	$4,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$147.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Luana Felix, Lorenz Salvatore Magaard-Romano, Max Spink and Alex Ropeti to pay [The landlord/s] $147.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $147.00 Luana Felix, Lorenz Salvatore Magaard- Romano, Max Spink and Alex Ropeti: $3,853.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy ended in September 2024 and the parties cannot agree how the bond should be refunded. The landlord has applied for compensation for additional cleaning and an order that money be paid to the landlord because of a misunderstanding about over paid rent. The tenants want compensation because the house was draughty during the tenancy.

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

There is a claim for the cost of additional cleaning in the amount of $345 to be refunded from the bond. Tenants must return the tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord took photos to show the need for additional cleaning. I can see some of the floors needed to be vacuumed and/or mopped. The bathroom was not left in a reasonable condition. The appliances including the oven needed further cleaning. The fact I only had a few photos suggests the rest of the house was left in a reasonable condition. I allow $120 which seems a reasonable amount based in the evidence provided.

Do the tenants owe other money?

After the tenancy ended one of the tenants paid $765 into the landlord’s rental account with no payee reference information. The landlord returned the money by paying it into the tenants’ joint account. The tenants split the money four ways. The landlord subsequently found out the money was intended as rent for a completely unrelated property and wants an equivalent amount of money from the bond.
I find I do not have the jurisdiction to decide this issue. Section 77(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Any dispute about splitting the money four ways is a dispute between the tenants. Any dispute about owed rent is for an unrelated tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the draught stopping standard?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached the its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard which requires residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenant who attended the hearing submitted that two windows did not close, there was a crack in the front door and there were gaps between the floorboards. He said these all meant the house was draughty and cold. This was not raised with the landlord during the tenancy.
The landlord provided me with the healthy homes report from the start of the tenancy. The underfloor insulation meets the requirements, so it seems unlikely to me there were draughts through the floorboards. The report also states the house was free from draughts at the start of the tenancy. If the door and the windows no longer closed properly or needed to be repaired the tenants should have been raised this with the landlord as a maintenance issue. I am not persuaded there was a breach of the HHS and this claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The landlord’s application is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names are published because there is public interest when tenants have to pay money at the end of the tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5038068 — net $147.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$120.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$147.00
Bond	$4,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$147.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Luana Felix, Lorenz Salvatore Magaard-Romano, Max Spink and Alex Ropeti to pay [The landlord/s] $147.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $147.00 Luana Felix, Lorenz Salvatore Magaard- Romano, Max Spink and Alex Ropeti: $3,853.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy ended in September 2024 and the parties cannot agree how the bond should be refunded. The landlord has applied for compensation for additional cleaning and an order that money be paid to the landlord because of a misunderstanding about over paid rent. The tenants want compensation because the house was draughty during the tenancy.

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

There is a claim for the cost of additional cleaning in the amount of $345 to be refunded from the bond. Tenants must return the tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord took photos to show the need for additional cleaning. I can see some of the floors needed to be vacuumed and/or mopped. The bathroom was not left in a reasonable condition. The appliances including the oven needed further cleaning. The fact I only had a few photos suggests the rest of the house was left in a reasonable condition. I allow $120 which seems a reasonable amount based in the evidence provided.

Do the tenants owe other money?

After the tenancy ended one of the tenants paid $765 into the landlord’s rental account with no payee reference information. The landlord returned the money by paying it into the tenants’ joint account. The tenants split the money four ways. The landlord subsequently found out the money was intended as rent for a completely unrelated property and wants an equivalent amount of money from the bond.
I find I do not have the jurisdiction to decide this issue. Section 77(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Any dispute about splitting the money four ways is a dispute between the tenants. Any dispute about owed rent is for an unrelated tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

Was there a breach of the draught stopping standard?

The tenants claim the landlord has breached the its obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS draught stopping standard which requires residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise.
The tenant who attended the hearing submitted that two windows did not close, there was a crack in the front door and there were gaps between the floorboards. He said these all meant the house was draughty and cold. This was not raised with the landlord during the tenancy.
The landlord provided me with the healthy homes report from the start of the tenancy. The underfloor insulation meets the requirements, so it seems unlikely to me there were draughts through the floorboards. The report also states the house was free from draughts at the start of the tenancy. If the door and the windows no longer closed properly or needed to be repaired the tenants should have been raised this with the landlord as a maintenance issue. I am not persuaded there was a breach of the HHS and this claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The landlord’s application is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names are published because there is public interest when tenants have to pay money at the end of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5038068 — Cleanliness at 2 Hataitai Road, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5038068 — Cleanliness at 2 Hataitai Road, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Do the tenants owe other money?

Was there a breach of the draught stopping standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Do the tenants owe other money?

Was there a breach of the draught stopping standard?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions