How much money was awarded in case 5100029?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Fire Remote: $48.50 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remotes: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $73.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Tribunal Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100029?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11532263-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5100029?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Fire Remote: $48.50 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remotes: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $73.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Tribunal Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100029?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11532263-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Cyclamen Place, Aidanfield, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100029 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100029?

The tribunal order states: Callum Farrell and Levi Coombs must pay Vision Realty Management Limited

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100029 — net $688.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Key replacement	$40.00	Key replacement
Garage Door Remotes	$100.00	Garage Door Remotes
Heat Pump Remote	$73.19	Heat Pump Remote
Fire Remote	$48.50	Fire Remote
Tribunal Fee	$27.00	Tribunal Fee
Net award	$688.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$688.69

Callum Farrell and Levi Coombs must pay Vision Realty Management Limited As Agent For Lisa Wang $688.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$400.00 Key replacement$40.00 Garage Door Remotes$100.00 Heat Pump Remote$73.19 Fire Remote$48.50 Tribunal Fee$27.00 Total award$688.69 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$688.69

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The landlord has the onus of proving its claims; on the balance of probabilities.

The landlord already had an Order for rent arrears to the date possession was granted, paid from the bond. The claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

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 claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claimed $989 for cleaning which included some ancillary repairs. The cleaning invoice included exterior windows which is a landlord maintenance issue. The tenant also disputed that the condition of the premises was as bad as the landlord portrayed. The landlord provided limited photographs and the tenant said that even those were from before cleaning was complete. The tenant did not have any photographs.

Having regard to all the evidence and orders for similar levels of cleaning required, I award the landlord $400.

The tenant did not return all the keys and various remote controls were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claimed that lock replacement was required. The landlord may have chosen to replace the locks but did not establish a valid reason for doing so in this case; its loss is the cost of cutting replacement keys. I award $40.

I have awarded the amounts claimed for replacement heat pump and fire remotes. The landlord claimed $828 for a new garage door opener and remotes. The chain of the opener had slipped and was not operational. There was no evidence as to why this could not be repaired. The opener was more than 10 years old. The chain repair or replacement is a maintenance issue for the landlord. The tenant accepted that the remotes were missing, and I award $100 for those.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The landlord claims that electrical and plumbing damage occurred during the tenancy. The landlord provided limited evidence of the alleged damage (one photograph of a light fitting in respect of a $1,300 claim). Having reviewed the invoices and photographs provided, the issues identified appear to landlord maintenance issues, not tenant damage. For example, the plumbing invoice records “this type of mixer handle is common to fall off due to the metal on metal contact...”. That invoice did note that a shower hose “may” have been stretched by the tenant; but the photographs show the hose to be in poor condition and possibly corroded. The landlord has not established its claims for damage. They are dismissed.

The landlord also claimed $110 for a cancellation fee for carpet laying at the premises. The landlord did not provide any evidence that the appropriate notice was given to the tenants before the tradespeople arrived. The tenant said that the owner sent the tradespeople away. This claim was not established and is dismissed.

As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. However, the landlord was not substantially successful, so I have not granted its request for suppression of its details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100029 — net $688.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Key replacement	$40.00	Key replacement
Garage Door Remotes	$100.00	Garage Door Remotes
Heat Pump Remote	$73.19	Heat Pump Remote
Fire Remote	$48.50	Fire Remote
Tribunal Fee	$27.00	Tribunal Fee
Net award	$688.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$688.69

Order

Callum Farrell and Levi Coombs must pay Vision Realty Management Limited As Agent For Lisa Wang $688.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$400.00 Key replacement$40.00 Garage Door Remotes$100.00 Heat Pump Remote$73.19 Fire Remote$48.50 Tribunal Fee$27.00 Total award$688.69 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$688.69
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has the onus of proving its claims; on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord already had an Order for rent arrears to the date possession was granted, paid from the bond. The claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

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 claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claimed $989 for cleaning which included some ancillary repairs. The cleaning invoice included exterior windows which is a landlord maintenance issue. The tenant also disputed that the condition of the premises was as bad as the landlord portrayed. The landlord provided limited photographs and the tenant said that even those were from before cleaning was complete. The tenant did not have any photographs.
Having regard to all the evidence and orders for similar levels of cleaning required, I award the landlord $400.
The tenant did not return all the keys and various remote controls were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claimed that lock replacement was required. The landlord may have chosen to replace the locks but did not establish a valid reason for doing so in this case; its loss is the cost of cutting replacement keys. I award $40.
I have awarded the amounts claimed for replacement heat pump and fire remotes. The landlord claimed $828 for a new garage door opener and remotes. The chain of the opener had slipped and was not operational. There was no evidence as to why this could not be repaired. The opener was more than 10 years old. The chain repair or replacement is a maintenance issue for the landlord. The tenant accepted that the remotes were missing, and I award $100 for those.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims that electrical and plumbing damage occurred during the tenancy. The landlord provided limited evidence of the alleged damage (one photograph of a light fitting in respect of a $1,300 claim). Having reviewed the invoices and photographs provided, the issues identified appear to landlord maintenance issues, not tenant damage. For example, the plumbing invoice records “this type of mixer handle is common to fall off due to the metal on metal contact...”. That invoice did note that a shower hose “may” have been stretched by the tenant; but the photographs show the hose to be in poor condition and possibly corroded. The landlord has not established its claims for damage. They are dismissed.
The landlord also claimed $110 for a cancellation fee for carpet laying at the premises. The landlord did not provide any evidence that the appropriate notice was given to the tenants before the tradespeople arrived. The tenant said that the owner sent the tradespeople away. This claim was not established and is dismissed.
As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. However, the landlord was not substantially successful, so I have not granted its request for suppression of its details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100029 — Cleanliness at 4 Cyclamen Place, Aidanfield, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100029 — Cleanliness at 4 Cyclamen Place, Aidanfield, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions