How much money was awarded in case 5095868?

Bailiff Fee: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $145.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11544592-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5095868?

Bailiff Fee: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $145.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11544592-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5095868 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5095868 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 5095868 — net $40.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$115.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$145.00	Lock/key replacement
Bailiff fee	$258.00	Bailiff fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$40.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$40.29

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

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $40.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $654.71 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

[Redacted and [ redacted] appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared.

On 20 December 2024, the landlord filed a claim that tenant: i. Owed rent arrears to 22 November 2024 ($1,005.70), ii. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish ($360.00), iii. Failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean ($115.00), iv. Failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy ($109.25), v. Failed to return the keys ($290.00), vi. Is liable for an eviction fee ($258.00).

The amounts in brackets beside each claim represent the compensation sought.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

Are rent arrears owed?

The tenancy was a joint tenancy commencing on 15 January 2022, for a fixed term ending on 14 January 2023, after which it became periodic. During the tenancy, one of the tenants passed away, leaving the named tenant and their family.

On 24 July 2024, the parties entered a mediated agreement for rent arrears. The terms of the agreement were that if the tenant defaulted, the landlord could terminate the tenancy within 90 days of the first default.

On or about 07 September 2024, the tenant defaulted on the agreement. Between 07 September 2024 and mid-October 2024, the landlord sent several email messages inviting the tenant to contact them about the default. The messages were sent to an email address listed in the tenancy agreement as the tenant’s address for service. The landlord also sent text messages to a number used by the tenant on or about April 2024. Despite multiple attempts there was no reply to the emails or texts.

On 29 October 2024, the landlord notified the tenant they had commenced an eviction process and had engaged the services of the bailiff. The landlord has produced evidence from the bailiff outlining a two-step process: first a warning letter is posted, and if the tenant does not comply, eviction is enforced.

At around 9am on 11 November 2024, the bailiff arrived to evict the tenant. The tenant states they had not received the first warning notice. The tenant states while they knew they had defaulted on the mediated agreement that they had not had any contact with the landlord. The tenant states that earlier in the year they had changed their email address but had not advised the landlord.

The tenant states he was not asked for the keys to the property by the bailiff and that a locksmith was waiting to change the locks.

At around 8.18am on 11 November 2024, the landlord sent a text to the tenant warning them of the imminent eviction. The tenant sent a text in reply. This suggests that the tenant had likely received texts from the landlord about the default.

After the eviction the landlord allowed the tenant access to retrieve possessions and complete cleaning etc. Over the next fortnight, with the landlord’s permission, the tenant returned to the property on three or four occasions. On 22 November 2024, the tenant informed the landlord they had finished.

At the end of the tenancy the parties agreed for a portion of the bond to be released to cover the rent arrears owing to 11 November 2024. The landlord is also claiming rent to the 22 November 2024 of $1,005.70.

The landlord states they allowed the tenant access to avoid the tenant being held liable for the expense of the landlord removing the tenant’s possessions and then seeking to recover removal and any storage costs.

While the tenant does not contest the eviction, but disputes liability for a further fortnight rent. Decision rent claim

The claim for rent from 11 November 2024 to 22 November 2024 is declined.

Under the Act, tenants are liable for rent owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenancy ended on 11 November 2024 when the landlord took possession. The tenant was liable for rent to that date. Any subsequent agreement between the parties after the end of the tenancy is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as it is not an agreement between a landlord and a tenant, as defined in section 2(1) of the Act.

There is in any event no evidence of any meeting of the minds as to the terms of any agreement concerning the tenants continued obligation to pay rent after the tenancy had ended. Bailiff’s fee

Under section 16 of the Act, tenant’s must inform the landlord of any change in their address for service. While it would have been prudent for the landlord to have actually visited the property and determine what was happening, the termination notice was nevertheless sent to the tenant’s email address for service. When the tenant failed to respond the landlord rightfully instructed the bailiff. I award reimbursement of the bailiff’s fee.

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, and return the keys provided.

The landlord states that despite being given the opportunity the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. The landlord is claiming $360.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal, $115 for carpet cleaning, and $109.25 for lawn mowing. The landlord is also claiming $290.00 to change the locks.

The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy.

Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The tenant states that they cleaned the property to a reasonable standard and mowed half of the lawn.

The landlord has produced photographs of the property taken on 11 November 2024 and 22 November 2024. Carpet

The photographs show staining and soiling to the carpet. This was removed by cleaning. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean, and the amount claimed is awarded. General cleaning and rubbish removal

I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to clean the inside of several kitchen cupboards, the inside of the oven, and the dishwasher. There are some scraps of cardboard in the bottom of the recycling bin, which was due for collection the week following, and a cardboard roll and two pieces of wood behind the red bin. The red bin was placed on the roadside for collection.

Based on the photographic evidence produced, I am not satisfied that the amount claimed is justified, and I award the landlord $150.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal. Lawns

Despite the tenant admitting having mown only half of the lawn, the photographs of the lawns are insufficient to make an accurate assessment of whether the tenant has failed to meet their obligations or not. The claim is dismissed. Keys

The tenant states that they were not asked by the bailiff to return the keys, and that had they been asked, they would have been in a position to comply, so negating the need for the locksmith to then change the locks. The landlord states that the locks were changed to stop the tenant from re-entering the property. For the purposes of regaining possession, the bailiff was acting as the landlord’s agent. The tenant being asked for the keys by the bailiff, who would have passed them to the landlord, who it appears was nearby at the time, would have avoided locksmith costs.

Section 85 of the Act provides that the Tribunal is to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations to legal forms or technicalities.

Although the tenant’s failure to pay rent and notify the landlord of a change of address for service led to defaulting on the mediated agreement and subsequent eviction, the landlord’s costs for changing of the locks were avoidable. Therefore, I award the landlord half the amount claimed. Costs

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.

Both parties seek name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

Assessed globally I am of the opinion that both parties have been sufficiently successful in these proceedings, and both are granted name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5095868 — net $40.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$115.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$145.00	Lock/key replacement
Bailiff fee	$258.00	Bailiff fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$40.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$40.29