How much money was awarded in case 5148772?

Orders Suppression Of The Tenant’S N…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148772?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11674394-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5148772?

Orders Suppression Of The Tenant’S N…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5148772?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5148772?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11674394-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Lockwood Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5148772 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5148772 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 5148772. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited - As Agent For Jlm Trust must p	$27.00		orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited - As Agent For Jlm Trust must p

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

Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited - As Agent For Jlm Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

This is a cross application. The tenancy ended on 20 January 2025.

The tenant has applied for refund of her bond. The landlord has applied for compensation for carpet cleaning. The tenant’s application included a claim for exemplary damages, however at the hearing the tenant did not pursue this claim and accordingly it is dismissed. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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. 1 Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 3

The landlord claimed carpet cleaning costs. Both parties initially treated this issue as a damage claim, however the amount claimed by the landlord of $161.00 is for a carpet cleaning invoice and I have treated it this way.

The landlord says the tenant caused two small rust stains on the carpet in the main bedroom. The landlord provided an invoice and photograph in support of the claim. The landlord said the carpet was replaced during the tenancy as the tenant raised concerns about its condition at the commencement of the tenancy.

The tenant did not dispute the existence of the rust stains and acknowledged she did not remove them to avoid making the marks worse.

However, the tenant said that at the end of the tenancy the premises was cleaner than when she received it. The tenant said she spent days cleaning the premises at the start of the tenancy. The landlord acknowledged this and said she was reimbursed her expenses for cleaning the premises herself.

A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. 4 While I accept that the carpet was new during the tenancy I 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 4 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at 770 also consider the landlord should expect to undertake some cleaning between tenancies and the level of cleaning the landlord had to undertake in this case was minimal.

I consider the premises was reasonably clean and tidy. For these reasons the landlords claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Bond

The bond is to be paid to the tenant immediately. Filing fee

As the tenant has succeeded with her claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee to her. Suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

The tenant sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5148772. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited - As Agent For Jlm Trust must p	$27.00		orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited - As Agent For Jlm Trust must p

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

Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited - As Agent For Jlm Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

This is a cross application. The tenancy ended on 20 January 2025.

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

The tenant did not dispute the existence of the rust stains and acknowledged she did not remove them to avoid making the marks worse.

I consider the premises was reasonably clean and tidy. For these reasons the landlords claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Bond

The bond is to be paid to the tenant immediately. Filing fee

As the tenant has succeeded with her claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee to her. Suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression.

The tenant sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148772 — Cleanliness at 20 Lockwood Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5148772 — Cleanliness at 20 Lockwood Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions