What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296701 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 (3107239-016) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5296701?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296701?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12379463-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296701 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 (3107239-016) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5296701?

Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296701?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12379463-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Hulme Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296701 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

31 Hulme Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296701 — Cleanliness | 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 5296701. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$345.00		The claim for cleaning is proven.

Claims and awards for application 5296701. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: The claim for cleaning is proven.

Dismissed claims

Toilet Seat

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 (3107239-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Manawatu Limited Acting As Agent For Mana Whakaheke Limited B. Barnett: $345.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $935.00
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, carpet cleaning, cleaning and replacement of a broken toilet seat.
At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim for rent arrears because no rent was owed at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claimed for carpet cleaning, but the tenant stated that she returned to the premises two days after the tenancy ended and she saw that the carpet had been removed.
This tenancy began in 2014 and the tenant says that the carpet had been there for the previous tenancy. That means that the carpet is more than 11 years old. I note that the ingoing inspection report records that there were minor stains on the carpet in all three bedrooms. In the lounge the report records that there was pilling of the carpet.
At the hearing the tenant said that there was a paint stain on the carpet caused by a contractor who attended at the premises to carry out work for the landlord.
On the evidence it is not possible to determine whether any of the staining which required cleaning was caused by this tenant during the tenancy. The claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed.
The photographs produced by the landlord show that some areas of the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. The oven was particularly dirty. The claim for cleaning is proven.
The landlord claimed for replacement of the toilet seat. The photograph produced shows that the toilet seat was on the floor and therefore not attached to the toilet.
The tenant said that she had complained to the landlord that the toilet seat could not be reattached, but no action was taken by the landlord.
The photograph does not show that the toilet seat was broken. Also, a toilet seat is designed to be sat on. If it is damaged from normal use, then that is fair wear and tear. The claim for replacement of the toilet seat is dismissed.
While the landlord has had some success, I have not reimbursed the filing fee because the landlord has neither been substantially or wholly successful. For the same reason I have not suppressed the landlord’s name.
The bond is released in accordance with the claim awarded.

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 5296701. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$345.00		The claim for cleaning is proven.

Claims and awards for application 5296701. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $345.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: The claim for cleaning is proven.

Dismissed claims

Toilet Seat

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,280.00 (3107239-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Manawatu Limited Acting As Agent For Mana Whakaheke Limited B. Barnett: $345.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $935.00
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, carpet cleaning, cleaning and replacement of a broken toilet seat.
At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim for rent arrears because no rent was owed at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claimed for carpet cleaning, but the tenant stated that she returned to the premises two days after the tenancy ended and she saw that the carpet had been removed.
This tenancy began in 2014 and the tenant says that the carpet had been there for the previous tenancy. That means that the carpet is more than 11 years old. I note that the ingoing inspection report records that there were minor stains on the carpet in all three bedrooms. In the lounge the report records that there was pilling of the carpet.
At the hearing the tenant said that there was a paint stain on the carpet caused by a contractor who attended at the premises to carry out work for the landlord.
On the evidence it is not possible to determine whether any of the staining which required cleaning was caused by this tenant during the tenancy. The claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed.
The photographs produced by the landlord show that some areas of the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. The oven was particularly dirty. The claim for cleaning is proven.
The landlord claimed for replacement of the toilet seat. The photograph produced shows that the toilet seat was on the floor and therefore not attached to the toilet.
The tenant said that she had complained to the landlord that the toilet seat could not be reattached, but no action was taken by the landlord.
The photograph does not show that the toilet seat was broken. Also, a toilet seat is designed to be sat on. If it is damaged from normal use, then that is fair wear and tear. The claim for replacement of the toilet seat is dismissed.
While the landlord has had some success, I have not reimbursed the filing fee because the landlord has neither been substantially or wholly successful. For the same reason I have not suppressed the landlord’s name.
The bond is released in accordance with the claim awarded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296701 — Cleanliness at 31 Hulme Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296701 — Cleanliness at 31 Hulme Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.