How much money was awarded in case 5045009?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Of The Landlord Name And Identifying…: $391.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5045009?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5045009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11398059-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5045009?

Cleaning: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Of The Landlord Name And Identifying…: $391.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5045009?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5045009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11398059-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5045009 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5045009 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5045009. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2. Hannah Hayward, Ernesto Jr Vallano Mauro and Rosalina A Saut to pay [Th	$391.00		of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2. Hannah Hayward, Ernesto Jr Vallano Mauro and Rosalina A Saut to pay [Th
for carpet cleaning and	$184.00		for carpet cleaning and
Bond		$425.50

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

Hannah Hayward, Ernesto Jr Vallano Mauro and Rosalina A Saut to pay [The landlord/s] $391.00 from the bond, being $207.00 for carpet cleaning and $184.00 for the replacement of garage door remotes.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $425.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $391.00 Hannah Hayward, Ernesto Jr Vallano Mauro and Rosalina A Saut: $34.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord had applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The parties resolved a number of issues via mediation and referred the three remaining claims to the Tribunal. These compensation claims were for costs incurred in carpet cleaning, flea treatment, and replacement of garage door remotes.

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.

The landlord claimed the costs of carpet cleaning and flea treatment.

The tenants had arranged a partial clean of the house (two tenants’ rooms were not included in that exercise). The two tenants of those rooms did not dispute the carpet cleaning as claimed. The tenant who arranged the cleaning did. Comparative photos were provided by both parties, as was the invoice. Having further reviewed all evidence, I am satisfied the landlord has established the need for further carpet cleaning. Prior cleaning is evidenced but the quality is questionable given the remaining pet hair, carpet indentations, and some stains.

I do not find the landlord has evidenced any need for flea treatment to return the carpet to a reasonable condition. The claim for compensation for the invoiced flea treatment of $34.50 is dismissed. The fact a cat was at the premises is not in itself sufficient to oblige the tenants to pay for flea treatment.

The tenants did not return the garage door remotes. This was not disputed by the tenant present since the tenancy commenced. The other two joined the tenancy via a variation contract and they claim there were no remotes at the time of their joining the tenancy. The original tenant accepted the claim, noting the remotes were likely removed by departing tenants during this tenancy.

The amounts ordered are proved. Bond

The mediated order released the bond in part; $334.50 to the landlord and $1,560.00 to the tenants. The balance in dispute of $425.50 remained at the Bond Centre. The landlord received its $334.50. The bond record appears to reflect a reduction in bond for the tenant potion ($1,560.00) but, at the hearing, all three named tenants advised no payment has been received.

Resolution will require the tenants to engage with the Bond Centre about that initial release and the final amount as ordered here. For the avoidance of doubt, the mediated order of 22 November 2024 recorded $1,560.00 to be released to the three named tenants. They are also to receive the remaining $34.50 per this order. The intended prior release of the $1,560.00 to the three names tenants is not disputed. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5045009. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2. Hannah Hayward, Ernesto Jr Vallano Mauro and Rosalina A Saut to pay [Th	$391.00		of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2. Hannah Hayward, Ernesto Jr Vallano Mauro and Rosalina A Saut to pay [Th
for carpet cleaning and	$184.00		for carpet cleaning and
Bond		$425.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Hannah Hayward, Ernesto Jr Vallano Mauro and Rosalina A Saut to pay [The landlord/s] $391.00 from the bond, being $207.00 for carpet cleaning and $184.00 for the replacement of garage door remotes.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $425.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $391.00 Hannah Hayward, Ernesto Jr Vallano Mauro and Rosalina A Saut: $34.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord had applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties resolved a number of issues via mediation and referred the three remaining claims to the Tribunal. These compensation claims were for costs incurred in carpet cleaning, flea treatment, and replacement of garage door remotes.

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.
The landlord claimed the costs of carpet cleaning and flea treatment.
The tenants had arranged a partial clean of the house (two tenants’ rooms were not included in that exercise). The two tenants of those rooms did not dispute the carpet cleaning as claimed. The tenant who arranged the cleaning did. Comparative photos were provided by both parties, as was the invoice. Having further reviewed all evidence, I am satisfied the landlord has established the need for further carpet cleaning. Prior cleaning is evidenced but the quality is questionable given the remaining pet hair, carpet indentations, and some stains.
I do not find the landlord has evidenced any need for flea treatment to return the carpet to a reasonable condition. The claim for compensation for the invoiced flea treatment of $34.50 is dismissed. The fact a cat was at the premises is not in itself sufficient to oblige the tenants to pay for flea treatment.
The tenants did not return the garage door remotes. This was not disputed by the tenant present since the tenancy commenced. The other two joined the tenancy via a variation contract and they claim there were no remotes at the time of their joining the tenancy. The original tenant accepted the claim, noting the remotes were likely removed by departing tenants during this tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Bond
The mediated order released the bond in part; $334.50 to the landlord and $1,560.00 to the tenants. The balance in dispute of $425.50 remained at the Bond Centre. The landlord received its $334.50. The bond record appears to reflect a reduction in bond for the tenant potion ($1,560.00) but, at the hearing, all three named tenants advised no payment has been received.
Resolution will require the tenants to engage with the Bond Centre about that initial release and the final amount as ordered here. For the avoidance of doubt, the mediated order of 22 November 2024 recorded $1,560.00 to be released to the three named tenants. They are also to receive the remaining $34.50 per this order. The intended prior release of the $1,560.00 to the three names tenants is not disputed. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5045009 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5045009 — Cleanliness

At a glance

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

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