How much money was awarded in case 5051095?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5051095?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5051095?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11588755-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5051095?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5051095?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5051095?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11588755-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 574 Hereford Street, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5051095 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5051095 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 5051095 — net $82.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$220.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning	$270.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$82.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$82.00

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

Ivan Thomas must pay [The landlord/s] $82.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $435.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The landlord’s application for compensation for the time spent researching, preparing for, and attending the hearing is dismissed.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and carpet cleaning and for the time spent researching, preparing for, and attending the hearing. The landlord also seeks a refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has claimed for compensation arising from disruptions that occurred after the Christchurch earthquakes, the reimbursement of invoices for costs incurred between 2011 and 2018 and he challenges the validity of a notice of a rent increase given towards the end of 2013.

The tenancy was a long tenancy lasting almost 22 years. The landlord’s application

The landlord seeks compensation for carpet cleaning ($220.00) and for cleaning ($270) because it says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.

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).

In support of its claims, the landlord produced photos taken soon after the tenancy ended and invoices for the claimed costs.

The tenant submitted that he left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. He viewed the photos provided by the landlord in evidence today.

When assessing claims such as these ones, the Tribunal views the evidence objectively. Its decisions are not based on the subjective opinion of either party.

The tenant produced no photos to support his view that he left the premises reasonably clean.

The landlord’s photos establish that, objectively viewed, the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. The landlord has proved its claims for these costs by the evidence it produced – photos and invoices.

The landlord’s representative said that he and the owners of the property assisted the tenant to move his goods, and they did other cleaning for which no claim is made.

The landlord cannot claim the costs connected with its research for the hearing, nor for preparation and attendance. The landlord submitted that the tenant’s claim was vexatious or frivolous. On that basis it sought compensation for those costs.

The RTA does not provide for reimbursement of the costs sought. Each party bears the cost of preparing for and attending the hearing.

The bar for establishing that a claim is vexatious or frivolous is a very high one. Landlords and tenants are entitled to bring claims before the Tribunal as lay people.

The tenant’s application was not vexatious or frivolous. That it cannot succeed (for reasons I will give) does not mean that it was vexatious in nature. The tenant’s application

The tenant’s claims for rent reimbursement following a rent increase in or around 2013, and for other costs he incurred between 2011 and 2018 cannot succeed.

The landlord raised the Limitation Act 2010 as a defence to the tenant’s claims. Claims such as those made by the tenant have a 6-year limitation period from the date the cause of action arose.

I explained to the tenant that none of his claims could succeed given the defence raised by the landlord. They are time-barred.

The tenant’s application is dismissed. Result

The landlord’s application is successful. In addition to the proven claims for carpet cleaning and cleaning, the tenant must also pay the filing fee on the landlord’s successful application.

The bond will be paid to the landlord.

After the deduction of the bond, the tenant must pay the landlord $82.00.

The tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression

The tenant did not seek name suppression.

The landlord sought, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression, as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5051095 — net $82.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$220.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning	$270.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$82.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$82.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Ivan Thomas must pay [The landlord/s] $82.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $435.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application for compensation for the time spent researching, preparing for, and attending the hearing is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and carpet cleaning and for the time spent researching, preparing for, and attending the hearing. The landlord also seeks a refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has claimed for compensation arising from disruptions that occurred after the Christchurch earthquakes, the reimbursement of invoices for costs incurred between 2011 and 2018 and he challenges the validity of a notice of a rent increase given towards the end of 2013.
The tenancy was a long tenancy lasting almost 22 years. The landlord’s application
The landlord seeks compensation for carpet cleaning ($220.00) and for cleaning ($270) because it says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
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).
In support of its claims, the landlord produced photos taken soon after the tenancy ended and invoices for the claimed costs.
The tenant submitted that he left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. He viewed the photos provided by the landlord in evidence today.
When assessing claims such as these ones, the Tribunal views the evidence objectively. Its decisions are not based on the subjective opinion of either party.
The tenant produced no photos to support his view that he left the premises reasonably clean.
The landlord’s photos establish that, objectively viewed, the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. The landlord has proved its claims for these costs by the evidence it produced – photos and invoices.
The landlord’s representative said that he and the owners of the property assisted the tenant to move his goods, and they did other cleaning for which no claim is made.
The landlord cannot claim the costs connected with its research for the hearing, nor for preparation and attendance. The landlord submitted that the tenant’s claim was vexatious or frivolous. On that basis it sought compensation for those costs.
The RTA does not provide for reimbursement of the costs sought. Each party bears the cost of preparing for and attending the hearing.
The bar for establishing that a claim is vexatious or frivolous is a very high one. Landlords and tenants are entitled to bring claims before the Tribunal as lay people.
The tenant’s application was not vexatious or frivolous. That it cannot succeed (for reasons I will give) does not mean that it was vexatious in nature. The tenant’s application
The tenant’s claims for rent reimbursement following a rent increase in or around 2013, and for other costs he incurred between 2011 and 2018 cannot succeed.
The landlord raised the Limitation Act 2010 as a defence to the tenant’s claims. Claims such as those made by the tenant have a 6-year limitation period from the date the cause of action arose.
I explained to the tenant that none of his claims could succeed given the defence raised by the landlord. They are time-barred.
The tenant’s application is dismissed. Result
The landlord’s application is successful. In addition to the proven claims for carpet cleaning and cleaning, the tenant must also pay the filing fee on the landlord’s successful application.
The bond will be paid to the landlord.
After the deduction of the bond, the tenant must pay the landlord $82.00.
The tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression, as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5051095 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 574 Hereford Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5051095 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 574 Hereford Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions