How much money was awarded in case 5071297?

Cleaning: $315.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $224.83 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5071297?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5071297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11540931-Tribunal_Order - AP.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5071297?

Cleaning: $315.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $224.83 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5071297?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5071297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11540931-Tribunal_Order - AP.pdf.

51 Burns Avenue, Takaro, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5071297 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5071297?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5071297 — net $1,666.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$315.00	Carpet Cleaning
Insurance excess (x 2	$1,100.00	Insurance excess (x 2
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$224.83	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,666.83
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,666.83

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

Andrew French, Jonothon Blake and Mitchell Tyack to pay [The landlord/s] $1,666.83 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,666.83 Andrew French, Jonothon Blake and Mitchell Tyack: $613.17

The claim for lawns is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The hearing held on 29 January 2025 was adjourned to enable service to be affected on Mitchell Tyack.

Mitchell Tyack provided a text message to the other tenants authorising them to represent him at the hearing. I am satisfied that Mitchell Tyack was served with the proceedings and had notice of this hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and 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.

The landlord claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal. The evidence of the tenants is that much of the rubbish for removal (chest of drawers, TV, lawnmower, paint cans) was present at the premises when they moved in. I note that the exit report records “bed base, lawn mower and wooden cabinets to stay” suggesting that they belong to the landlord. Unfortunately, there are only two photographs of the garage area before the tenancy commenced. I accept the tenant’s evidence that only the cupboard left behind belonged to them. Therefore, I have reduced the invoice by $115.00 for most of the rubbish removal.

The landlord claimed for lawns. The landlord produced an entry report and an exit report. The photographs from the entry report show that the lawns were longer than at the end of the tenancy. Also, I note that the exit inspection was carried out on 10 September 2024, four days after the tenancy ended. So, allowing for four days growth for the lawns I determine that the lawns when the tenancy ended were much tidier than at the beginning of the tenancy.

I acknowledge that there is an obligation on the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1) RTA) and on the tenant to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition (section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA). Given this evidence it is likely that the tenants understanding of what the landlord considered “reasonably clean” was influenced by the way that they received the premises from the landlord at the start of the tenancy. Given the evidence, I determine that the tenants should not be responsible for mowing the lawns after the tenancy ended. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

The landlord has claimed in respect of carpet replacement. The landlord did not know how old the carpet was. It was not new at the commencement of the tenancy because it is noted in the entry inspection report on 7 November 2023, “commercially cleaned new dark grey carpet...” While it is described as “new” it must have been in a new condition because otherwise there would be no need to commercially clean new carpet.

The tenant had a cat at the premises by agreement with the landlord. The tenant said that there were two rooms that the cat was not allowed to go in to and was prevented from doing so.

The landlord seeks insurance excess of $550.00 per room for carpet replacement. There were six rooms (lounge, hallway and four bedrooms) where the carpet was replaced, and the insurance claim was accepted so the excess totals $3,300.00.

The question is whether all six rooms were damaged by the tenant’s cat. The exit inspection report dated 10 September 2024 refers to two rooms where the carpet was damaged. For bedroom 3 the comment on the report is, “cat pee smell. Has been professionally cleaned.” For the entrance hall the comment is, “Has ben professionally cleaned. Strong smell of cat urine throughout this area.”

For the remaining carpeted rooms, the comment in the report is either “carpeted, professionally clean” or “carpeted, clean”.

The landlord produced an email dated 12 September 2024 from Gold Carpet Cleaning the company which carried out the carpet cleaning. That email states “If this was my own house I would cut out the area of carpet by in the hall and remove it from the house before getting a report done. I think this area of carpet will need to be removed regardless of what action you take. It will also be much more difficult to locate urine in other rooms with odour still emanating from the hall carpet”. There is no evidence that the landlord followed this advice.

The landlord produced an insurance assessment carried out by AMI dated 27 September 2024. That assessment states that the “customer has had a tenant in their rental property with a cat. The cat has used the house as a toilet and peed in multiple rooms at multiple times.”

While the assessment recommended removal of the carpet there is no evidence that the carpet in all six rooms was damaged, especially given the evidence from the carpet cleaner.

After considering all the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant has damaged all the carpet in the premises. There is evidence that two areas, the hallway and bedroom 3, were damaged by the tenant. I therefore award two amounts of the insurance excess to the landlord.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5071297 — net $1,666.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$315.00	Carpet Cleaning
Insurance excess (x 2	$1,100.00	Insurance excess (x 2
Cleaning: and rubbish removal	$224.83	Cleaning: and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,666.83
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,666.83

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

Andrew French, Jonothon Blake and Mitchell Tyack to pay [The landlord/s] $1,666.83 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,666.83 Andrew French, Jonothon Blake and Mitchell Tyack: $613.17

The claim for lawns is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The hearing held on 29 January 2025 was adjourned to enable service to be affected on Mitchell Tyack.

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

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

The tenant had a cat at the premises by agreement with the landlord. The tenant said that there were two rooms that the cat was not allowed to go in to and was prevented from doing so.

For the remaining carpeted rooms, the comment in the report is either “carpeted, professionally clean” or “carpeted, clean”.

While the assessment recommended removal of the carpet there is no evidence that the carpet in all six rooms was damaged, especially given the evidence from the carpet cleaner.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5071297 — Property damage at 51 Burns Avenue, Takaro, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5071297 — Property damage at 51 Burns Avenue, Takaro, Palmerston North 4412

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