What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5253879 about?

The tribunal order states: Herath Mudiyanselage Inoshika Subhashini Herath and Madamperuma

How much money was awarded in case 5253879?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $251.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5253879?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5253879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12062623-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5253879 about?

The tribunal order states: Herath Mudiyanselage Inoshika Subhashini Herath and Madamperuma

How much money was awarded in case 5253879?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $251.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5253879?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5253879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12062623-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 502, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5253879 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5253879 — net $1,066.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$251.50	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,066.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,066.00

Herath Mudiyanselage Inoshika Subhashini Herath and Madamperuma Arachchilage Latitha Anuranga to pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For Daniel Steel $1,066.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5521675-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For Daniel Steel: $1,066.00 Herath Mudiyanselage Inoshika Subhashini Herath and Madamperuma Arachchilage Latitha Anuranga: $1,334.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video/teleconference.

The landlord has applied for 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.”

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The carpet was stained. Photographs confirm this. The landlord provided an invoice for $1,699.00. This was for work engaged by the owner directly for both cleaning and carpet cleaning.

The invoice broke out $287.50 for carpet cleaning with the balance of the invoice cost reflecting 31.5 hours of commercial cleaning. This is an extensive labour claim for a small two-bedroom apartment. The need for carpet cleaning was obvious in the photos and not disputed by the tenants. This is awarded.

Aligning the photos of cleaning effort required to return the premises to a reasonable condition against the 31.5 hours in the invoice as not as conclusive. I have determined, based on the evidence and submissions, that $500.00 of that invoice should be awarded to compensate the landlord for the cleaning costs incurred that are more than likely a tenant liability. The effort established is mainly in the bathroom and kitchen.

The landlord sought the cost of methamphetamine testing ($798.47) be awarded. The test did not detect any contamination above the minimum standard outlined in NZS8510. Given the absence of any contamination, this testing process and cost is considered a “business as usual” effort by the landlord at the end of a tenancy. It should not be compensated by the tenants. The claim is dismissed.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 following damage was claimed as caused by the tenants during the tenancy: Lounge wall

The damage to the wall in the lounge, as evidenced by the photos, is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord sought $251.50 towards the repair cost. This is awarded. The tenants submitted some damage was pre-existing, but equally accepted other areas were damaged during the tenancy. The claimed cost is reasonable and awarded in full. Carpet

The initial application was lodged over six weeks after the tenancy ended. It did not make any claim regarding carpet at that time but about one week ago the owner presented the agent with an invoice for carpet replacement of $3,120.52. This order was placed over six weeks after the carpet cleaning. I accepted the later inclusion of the claim for carpet replacement.

The only photos provided were of the exit condition of the carpet, prior to commercial cleaning. These confirmed the staining. Evidence of any failure of this exercise to remove the evident stains was not provided. The report from the methamphetamine tester noted the carpet as “heavily stained and worn throughout”. The entry photos were inconclusion of the condition of the carpet at that time.

As foreshadowed at the hearing, the evidence beyond the invoice is minimal and does not prove any need to replace the carpet as later done because of the tenants. Even if there was evidence, the age and condition of the carpet at commencement would have required further accounting to allow consideration and application of depreciation, if appropriate.

I dismiss the claim for carpet replacement. It is not proven. Filing fee

Because Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For Daniel Steel has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. 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.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. However, I have some concerns with a number of the claims made but dismissed. While I considered a return of the filing fee appropriate, I do not consider the landlord should have suppression applied here. I consider there may be future public interest in the landlord or premise details that outweigh any consideration of suppression. The request is declined.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5253879 — net $1,066.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$251.50	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,066.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,066.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video/teleconference.

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

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was claimed as caused by the tenants during the tenancy: Lounge wall

I dismiss the claim for carpet replacement. It is not proven. Filing fee

Because Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For Daniel Steel has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5253879 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 502, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5253879 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 502, 53 Cook Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions