How much money was awarded in case 5242732?

Acio Contreras Pierola And Andrea Ma…: $1,838.57 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,778.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242732?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12402497-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5242732?

Acio Contreras Pierola And Andrea Ma…: $1,838.57 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,778.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5242732?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5242732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12402497-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38A Brougham Street, Nelson South, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5242732 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5242732 about?

The tribunal order states: Andres Ignacio Contreras Pierola and Andrea Maribel Lugo Pérez to pay The

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242732. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
acio Contreras Pierola and Andrea Maribel Lugo Pérez to pay The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For Hamish Neville Cooper	$1,838.57	acio Contreras Pierola and Andrea Maribel Lugo Pérez to pay The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For Hamish Neville Cooper
from the bond, being rent arrears of	$1,778.57	11. I find the rent summary establishes rent arrears of $1,778.57 as liable and this is ordered.
and cleaning costs of	$60.00	and cleaning costs of
Bond	$3,320.00

Andres Ignacio Contreras Pierola and Andrea Maribel Lugo Pérez to pay The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For Hamish Neville Cooper $1,838.57 from the bond, being rent arrears of $1,778.57 and cleaning costs of $60.00

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 (BN-00027440) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For Hamish Neville Cooper: $1,838.57 Andres Ignacio Contreras Pierola and Andrea Maribel Lugo Pérez: $1,481.43

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Georgina Lupton in person. The tenants joined via pre-approved teleconference. A court appointed Spanish interpreter assisted.

The tenants had applied for the return of their bond and the filing fee.

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

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case.

While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.

This was fixed-term tenancy that commenced 29 January 2025 for a one year fixed-term. It ended much earlier after tenant notice due to a change in their circumstances. Any tenancy liability ended 16 April 2025 with a new tenancy forming from 17 April 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.

The tenants submitted the landlord had failed to engage in negotiation regarding any rent liability due to the break in the fixed-term. While negotiation is encouraged, the landlord clearly asserted their right to hold the tenants liable for rent under the fixed-term until a new tenancy formed. That was open to it.

I find the rent summary establishes rent arrears of $1,778.57 as liable and this is ordered.

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

The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition 1 . The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

The landlord sought compensation for two costs incurred. The first was a cleaning invoice for $270.00 and the second a carpet cleaning and flea treatment invoice of $337.68. I deal with each in turn. Cleaning

The tenants left most of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There were issues at commencement of this tenancy with the less than reasonable condition of the premises. A cleaner attended at the landlord’s expense. In the invoice for $210.00 it was noted: 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

The same company invoiced for the vacated cleaning now claimed by the landlord as a tenant liability. In that invoice, it is noted:

I asked the landlord why the first cleaning exercise stuck to what was instructed by the landlord, despite the tenants believing there were more areas deficient than addressed; versus the later narrative that suggested the vacated cleaning tasks reflected the new tenant’s input or direction. The landlord stated she believed the cleaner was wrong in the invoice and a task list would have been provided. However, such a task list could not be found (the landlord had online access to the management database during the hearing).s

The tenants provided a series of photos in support of the good condition of the premises at exit. No exit photos from the landlord were available.

I prefer the tenant descriptions of the condition at both entry and exit to the landlord. I note the tenants did acknowledge and accept some cleaning was missed, suggesting the labour effort to be of one hour.

The fact that two consecutive tenancies now have commenced and subsequently required further cleaning after tenant notice is something the landlord should note and better manage to avoid in the future.

Having considered the evidence and submissions, I have awarded $60.00, reflecting the estimated cleaning effort acknowledged by the tenants, as well as reflecting the cost difference between the entry and exit cleaning. Carpet cleaning

The landlord arranged carpet cleaning and flea treatment. A dog was permitted under the tenancy agreement and a clause added to the tenancy agreement that the tenants “agree to take necessary steps to ensure that the carpets are clean and free from potential infestation at the conclusion of the tenancy.”

No evidence of need for cleaning or treatment was provided by the landlord. The tenant photos are not close up of any specific area but the carpet appears reasonably clean. I also have considered the occupation during this truncated tenancy was short and much less than the full one-year expected per the fixed- term.

Without evidence, the landlord relies on the specific term in the tenancy agreement. This was confirmed by an email to the tenants on 17 April 2025 where it stated:

The landlord has failed to evidence a need for the carpet cleaning or flea treatment of the whole house. The term in the tenancy agreement is not considered consistent with the Act and it is not binding here (see s 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

The claim for carpet cleaning and flea treatment is dismissed. Filing Fee

As neither party has been wholly or substantially successfully, I leave each party to carry their respective filing cost. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The tenants requested suppression in their application. I do not consider any special circumstances exist to justify further consideration beyond the statutory provision for suppression as of right. Neither party has been wholly or substantially successfully. No suppression is ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5242732. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
acio Contreras Pierola and Andrea Maribel Lugo Pérez to pay The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For Hamish Neville Cooper	$1,838.57	acio Contreras Pierola and Andrea Maribel Lugo Pérez to pay The Rent Shop Limited - As Agent For Hamish Neville Cooper
from the bond, being rent arrears of	$1,778.57	11. I find the rent summary establishes rent arrears of $1,778.57 as liable and this is ordered.
and cleaning costs of	$60.00	and cleaning costs of
Bond	$3,320.00