What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5109748 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5109748?

Nd The Tribunal Orders Suppression O…: $140.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5109748?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5109748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11622676-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5109748 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5109748?

Nd The Tribunal Orders Suppression O…: $140.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5109748?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5109748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11622676-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5109748 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5109748 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5109748 — net $140.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
nd the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T	$140.88	nd the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T
Net award	$140.88
Bond	$351.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$140.88

Claims and awards for application 5109748 — net $140.88 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

nd the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T

Amount: $140.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: nd the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T

Net award

Landlord $140.88

Bond

Landlord $351.75

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $140.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $140.88 from the bond, for half of the cost of carpet cleaning.
The claim for the cost of garden work is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $351.75 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $140.88 [The tenant/s]: $210.87

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held by video conference.
The parties disagree over two claims made by the landlord after this short tenancy ended.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires landlords to provide premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of a tenancy and requires tenants to do the same at the end of the tenancy; sections 45(1)(a) and 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.
“Reasonably clean and tidy” is not defined in the Act and can mean different things to different people.
After hearing evidence from both parties, my decisions are:- a. Carpet cleaning: the tenant was allowed to keep two dogs inside at the premises on condition that the premises were professionally carpet cleaned at the end of the tenancy. There is evidence of some dog hair remaining. However, the previous tenant had also kept a dog and it is not known for sure that the carpets were professionally cleaned afterwards. The tenant has shown that the premises were not reasonably clean when she moved in. I consider it fair that the tenant and the landlord each meet half of the cost of the carpet cleaning which is $140.88. b. Lawns: there were some weeds left at the end of this tenancy however the tenants photos from the start of the tenancy show the garden was not perfect, there were some weeds then too, and other issues. In general, it is unfair to require a tenant to return premises to a better state than they were at the start. I dismiss the landlord’s claim for lawn mowing and weeding.
The remaining bond is refunded in accordance with my order.
Both parties have been partially successful so I suppress both of their names.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5109748 — net $140.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
nd the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T	$140.88	nd the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T
Net award	$140.88
Bond	$351.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$140.88

Claims and awards for application 5109748 — net $140.88 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

nd the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T

Amount: $140.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: nd the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T

Net award

Landlord $140.88

Bond

Landlord $351.75

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $140.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $140.88 from the bond, for half of the cost of carpet cleaning.
The claim for the cost of garden work is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $351.75 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $140.88 [The tenant/s]: $210.87

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held by video conference.
The parties disagree over two claims made by the landlord after this short tenancy ended.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires landlords to provide premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of a tenancy and requires tenants to do the same at the end of the tenancy; sections 45(1)(a) and 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.
“Reasonably clean and tidy” is not defined in the Act and can mean different things to different people.
After hearing evidence from both parties, my decisions are:- a. Carpet cleaning: the tenant was allowed to keep two dogs inside at the premises on condition that the premises were professionally carpet cleaned at the end of the tenancy. There is evidence of some dog hair remaining. However, the previous tenant had also kept a dog and it is not known for sure that the carpets were professionally cleaned afterwards. The tenant has shown that the premises were not reasonably clean when she moved in. I consider it fair that the tenant and the landlord each meet half of the cost of the carpet cleaning which is $140.88. b. Lawns: there were some weeds left at the end of this tenancy however the tenants photos from the start of the tenancy show the garden was not perfect, there were some weeds then too, and other issues. In general, it is unfair to require a tenant to return premises to a better state than they were at the start. I dismiss the landlord’s claim for lawn mowing and weeding.
The remaining bond is refunded in accordance with my order.
Both parties have been partially successful so I suppress both of their names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5109748 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5109748 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions