How much money was awarded in case 5090128?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5090128?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5090128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11706238-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5090128?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5090128?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5090128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11706238-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1F George Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, Domain Tenancy Tribunal Case 5090128 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5090128 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5090128. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Wall	$100.00	Repairs: Wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

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

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $334.00 Zhi Huang and Janel Huang: $4,066.00

The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person and the tenants attended by telephone.

The landlord has applied for compensation in relation to cleaning and repairs to a wall, the laundry door and a wardrobe door.

The tenant has applied for a claim related to the Healthy Homes standards and for compensation in relation to mould. Landlord application

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition (section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

At the end of the tenancy the landlord advised the tenant that the premises were not clean, so the tenant arranged for a professional cleaner to attend on 18 November 2024. The landlord was still not happy with the condition that the premises were left in and produced photographs showing that some cleaning was still required.

I am satisfied that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition even after the tenant’s cleaner had attended on 18 November 2024. I have awarded the landlord for the cleaning invoice produced.

The landlord claimed for the cost of repairing a wall hole, the laundry door and the bedroom wardrobe door. The total of the invoice for these repairs is $201.25.

The tenant acknowledged the wall hole was caused by her cleaners and accepted an award for this repair. I have awarded the landlord $100.00 for the wall repair.

The tenant had advised the landlord by text in relation to the laundry door on 4 September 2024. The landlord responded asking for the address of the premises but failed to reply further or repair the door. I am not satisfied that the tenant caused damage to the door and instead that it failed due to normal use. I make no award in relation to the laundry door repair.

The tenant did not advise the landlord that there was any issue with the wardrobe door in the bedroom. The photograph produced by the landlord at the end of the tenancy shows that one of the three panels of the door is misaligned.

The landlord produced photographs from before the tenancy commenced. There is a photograph of the same wardrobe doors, and it shows that there was some misalignment before the tenancy started. This issue is likely to have got worse with use of the doors. For this reason, I have reached the conclusion that the tenants are not responsible for the damage to the door because the issue was pre-existing and would likely have worsened from normal usage. Tenant application

The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes Standards.

The landlord produced a certificate showing that the premises complied with the Healthy Homes Standards on 23 January 2023 which is in the same year that the tenancy began. Without any evidence that the premises did not comply I conclude that the premises were compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards. That part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

The tenant claims compensation for mould in the premises. There are three issues that may have contributed to mould growth in the premises. These were a window which was not able to be opened, a leaking hot water cylinder and a bathroom ventilation fan which the tenant says was not working.

The tenant said that she advised the landlord by telephone of the problem with the window early in the tenancy, but the agent failed to send anyone to fix it. She said that she left a note about it prior to a routine inspection. There is no evidence in relation to either the phone call or the note and no follow up communication between the parties.

It was not until a routine inspection on 23 July 2024, eleven months after the tenancy commenced, that there is record of an issue with the window. The landlord arranged for the window to be fixed and there is an invoice dated 1 September 2024.

When asked why the tenant did not follow up with the agent about the window not working the tenant said that their flatmate said not to worry about it. However, the tenant is obliged to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs (section 40(1)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). There is no evidence that this issue was raised with the landlord.

The leaking hot water cylinder was also discovered in the routine inspection on 23 July 2024. The landlord arranged for this to be repaired on 2 August 2024. There is no evidence that the tenant raised this issue.

The tenant had raised the issue of the bathroom ventilation fan not working in a text message sent on 21 August 2023. The landlord replied to that message asking the tenant to clean the vent and test it was working with a tissue. The tenant said, “Thank you, had a go at it yesterday”. But there is no evidence that it was still not working after the cleaning.

The landlord said that when he carried out the routine inspection on 22 October 2024 no maintenance issues had been raised. I note that the routine inspection report dated 23 April 2024 also records that there were no new maintenance issues to report.

In relation to the mould, the tenant said that the ceiling mould was discovered in the routine inspection on 23 July 2024. But the mould which she said was present elsewhere in the two bedrooms was not discovered until when they moved out because it was hidden behind the beds.

If the landlord does not know about mould, then there is no opportunity to carry out investigations to determine the cause of the mould. I am satisfied that the landlord carried out the necessary steps to repair the window and the hot water cylinder when it appears that these issues came to light. There is no evidence that the bathroom ventilation was not working.

The tenant’s claim in relation to the mould is dismissed.

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5090128. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Wall	$100.00	Repairs: Wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

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

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $334.00 Zhi Huang and Janel Huang: $4,066.00

The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person and the tenants attended by telephone.

The landlord has applied for compensation in relation to cleaning and repairs to a wall, the laundry door and a wardrobe door.

The tenant has applied for a claim related to the Healthy Homes standards and for compensation in relation to mould. Landlord application

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition (section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

The landlord claimed for the cost of repairing a wall hole, the laundry door and the bedroom wardrobe door. The total of the invoice for these repairs is $201.25.

The tenant acknowledged the wall hole was caused by her cleaners and accepted an award for this repair. I have awarded the landlord $100.00 for the wall repair.

The tenant applied for a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes Standards.

The tenant’s claim in relation to the mould is dismissed.

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

Tenancy Tribunal case 5090128 — Cleanliness at 1F George Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, Domain

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5090128 — Cleanliness at 1F George Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, Domain

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions