How much money was awarded in case 5083348?

Cleaning: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $685.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $122.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5083348?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5083348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11335773-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5083348?

Cleaning: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $685.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $122.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5083348?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5083348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11335773-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

185 Settlement Road, Te Horo, Otaki 5582 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5083348 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5083348?

The tribunal order states: Belinda Hera Joy Brough to pay Jade Rental Properties Limited Acting agent for

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5083348 — net $1,387.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$685.71	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$552.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$122.50	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,387.21
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,387.21

Belinda Hera Joy Brough to pay Jade Rental Properties Limited Acting agent for Jack Sharp $1,387.21 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6532075-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Jade Rental Properties Limited as agent for Jack Sharp: $1,387.21 Belinda Hera Joy Brough: $1,012.79

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The respondent appeared by teleconference.

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

Rent arrears?

The tenant agreed the amount for rent arrears should be paid to the landlord from the bond.

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 tenant did not dispute the cleaning fee. Rubbish removal

The tenant did dispute the charge for rubbish removal. There was discussion about whether a ceramic pot plant was on the deck when the tenancy commenced. Having considered the evidence regarding rubbish I am satisfied that this small extra item would not significantly affect the cost of rubbish removal. I have assessed the time for a return trip to the tip to be 25 minutes and I have allowed 20 minutes to load and unload the few items left by the tenant. The landlord said there were two people doing the work. There was a large item that may have required two people to lift. I have allowed 45 minutes in total for rubbish removal at $65.00 per hour for two people plus a $25.00 vehicle charge. This amounts to $122.50. The weed eater.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave all chattels provided by the landlord. The landlord has claimed that a Stihl weed eater, worth $875.00, was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant claims that she did not remove the weed eater from the property. She said she had no use for the weed eater. Her shoulder is damaged, and the machine is too heavy for her to use. She said that didn’t use the weed eater during the tenancy and had no reason to believe it was not in the locked shed.

The tenancy ended on Friday, 25 October 2024. The tenant returned the keys on that day. The fact that a few items were left outside the premises to be collected cannot be taken to mean that the tenancy had not come to an end. It ended when the keys to the premises and shed were returned to the landlord and the landlord then had possession of the property.

The tenant said that she locked the premises including the shed where the owner kept the weed eater. The tenant did leave some items at the property to be collected by a friend. The items to be collected were not left inside the locked premises. The friend collected the items on the weekend. At the time he collected her items the friend contacted the tenant and told her that the property was unlocked. He videoed inside the premises. He did not have a key.

Clearly the premises was unlocked after the tenant left the property. The tenant stated that had been another occasion when someone had used a key to enter the premises when she was not at home and there was a need to correct an electrical fault affecting her property and a neighbouring property. She did not know who it was. The fault was corrected. The tenant said that the owner has a relative in an adjoining property.

The tenant’s obligation regarding chattels ended on 25 October. The landlord must prove that the weed eater was not at the property when the tenant left. It was the Friday before Labour weekend. The landlord did an inspection after Labour weekend. Therefore, there was a gap of several days where someone could have entered the property and taken the weed eater. Whoever had a key to enter the premises during the tenancy could have unlocked the property, entered the shed and removed the weed eater.

The owner also alleged that the tenant had taken a water blaster but then corrected that. It had been located.

There is sufficient uncertainty regarding the weed eater for me to determine that the tenant removed it on or before 25 October 2024. The claim for this item is therefore dismissed. Filing Fee

Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5083348 — net $1,387.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$685.71	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$552.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$122.50	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,387.21
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,387.21

Order

Belinda Hera Joy Brough to pay Jade Rental Properties Limited Acting agent for Jack Sharp $1,387.21 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6532075-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Jade Rental Properties Limited as agent for Jack Sharp: $1,387.21 Belinda Hera Joy Brough: $1,012.79

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The respondent appeared by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Rent arrears?

The tenant agreed the amount for rent arrears should be paid to the landlord from the bond.

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 tenant did not dispute the cleaning fee. Rubbish removal
The tenant did dispute the charge for rubbish removal. There was discussion about whether a ceramic pot plant was on the deck when the tenancy commenced. Having considered the evidence regarding rubbish I am satisfied that this small extra item would not significantly affect the cost of rubbish removal. I have assessed the time for a return trip to the tip to be 25 minutes and I have allowed 20 minutes to load and unload the few items left by the tenant. The landlord said there were two people doing the work. There was a large item that may have required two people to lift. I have allowed 45 minutes in total for rubbish removal at $65.00 per hour for two people plus a $25.00 vehicle charge. This amounts to $122.50. The weed eater.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave all chattels provided by the landlord. The landlord has claimed that a Stihl weed eater, worth $875.00, was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant claims that she did not remove the weed eater from the property. She said she had no use for the weed eater. Her shoulder is damaged, and the machine is too heavy for her to use. She said that didn’t use the weed eater during the tenancy and had no reason to believe it was not in the locked shed.
The tenancy ended on Friday, 25 October 2024. The tenant returned the keys on that day. The fact that a few items were left outside the premises to be collected cannot be taken to mean that the tenancy had not come to an end. It ended when the keys to the premises and shed were returned to the landlord and the landlord then had possession of the property.
The tenant said that she locked the premises including the shed where the owner kept the weed eater. The tenant did leave some items at the property to be collected by a friend. The items to be collected were not left inside the locked premises. The friend collected the items on the weekend. At the time he collected her items the friend contacted the tenant and told her that the property was unlocked. He videoed inside the premises. He did not have a key.
Clearly the premises was unlocked after the tenant left the property. The tenant stated that had been another occasion when someone had used a key to enter the premises when she was not at home and there was a need to correct an electrical fault affecting her property and a neighbouring property. She did not know who it was. The fault was corrected. The tenant said that the owner has a relative in an adjoining property.
The tenant’s obligation regarding chattels ended on 25 October. The landlord must prove that the weed eater was not at the property when the tenant left. It was the Friday before Labour weekend. The landlord did an inspection after Labour weekend. Therefore, there was a gap of several days where someone could have entered the property and taken the weed eater. Whoever had a key to enter the premises during the tenancy could have unlocked the property, entered the shed and removed the weed eater.
The owner also alleged that the tenant had taken a water blaster but then corrected that. It had been located.
There is sufficient uncertainty regarding the weed eater for me to determine that the tenant removed it on or before 25 October 2024. The claim for this item is therefore dismissed. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5083348 — Rent arrears at 185 Settlement Road, Te Horo, Otaki 5582

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5083348 — Rent arrears at 185 Settlement Road, Te Horo, Otaki 5582

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Rent arrears?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Rent arrears?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions