What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297000 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5297000?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297000?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297000?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12826547-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297000 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5297000?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297000?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297000?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12826547-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

424 Roscommon Road, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297000 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297000 — net $108.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$108.00
Bond	$1,852.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$108.00

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Ireen And [The landlord/s] $108.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,852.54 (5788769-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Crockers Property Management Limited as agent for Ireen And [The landlord/s]: $108.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,744.54
An application for suppression has been made in this case. The Tribunal declines to order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties reached agreement about several matters at mediation. They did not reach agreement about the landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning, net curtain replacement, ceiling painting and clothesline replacement.

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. Cleaning
The landlord has claimed $402.50 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photos and an invoice from the company who carried out cleaning work at the premises. Having considered this evidence I am satisfied that the cleaning work in the garage, cleaning a light switch and cleaning a dishwasher panel is the extent of the tenant’s liability for cleaning. The evidence points to other items the landlord has claimed for being reasonably clean. I have assessed that $80.00 is a reasonable amount to pay for cleaning those items. Carpet patching and replacement
The landlord has claimed that the tenant has damaged the carpet in two areas because stains have not been able to be removed. The mediator’s order shows that the tenant has already paid $230.00 from the bond for carpet cleaning.
The landlord has not replaced or repaired the stained carpet, and a new tenant is occupying the property.
Stain removal from carpets often requires a specialist who is familiar with stain identification. A specialist uses particular solvents on particular stains. The company used for carpet cleaning in this case has not been identified by the landlord as being a specialist carpet stain removal contractor. The failure to use a specialist means that the landlord has not proved that the stains in the carpet could not be removed. In addition, (i) the stains are not sufficiently serious to warrant replacement carpet and (ii) the owner has not provided the property manager with an invoice to show the age of the carpet for depreciation purposes. The claim for the tenant to pay compensation for replacement carpet is dismissed. Net curtain replacement
The landlord has claimed that the tenant should replace the net curtains.
The tenant replaced the net curtains during the tenancy. The landlord is unhappy because the net curtains supplied by the tenant don’t match others in the house. In addition, one replacement net curtain was ripped during the tenancy.
The tenant stated that the net curtains were old at the start of the tenancy. She purchased the new net curtains shortly after the tenancy began because of the poor condition of the curtains.
There is little evidence regarding the condition of the net curtains at the start of the tenancy. However I am satisfied that the tenant would not have replaced curtains that were in perfectly good condition. The landlord has benefitted from the tenant purchasing replacement curtains and thereby delaying the landlord’s outlay for replacement net curtains. In addition, net curtains are given a deprecated life of three years. The landlord’s net curtains would have reached their depreciated life. The claim for the tenant to pay for net curtains is dismissed. Painting a bedroom ceiling.
The landlord has claimed that the tenant damaged a bedroom ceiling by attaching stickers to the ceiling. There was no evidence produced showing that the tenant had put stickers on the ceiling. The tenant stated that there were no stickers put on ceilings during the tenancy.
The evidence does not support the landlord’s claim. The peeling is localized and more consistent with a loose paint. The claim that the tenant damaged the ceiling is dismissed. Clothesline
The landlord has claimed that the tenant removed the clothesline. The tenant does not dispute that the clothesline was removed. She stated that it was agreed that her father could remove it because it was rusty and usable. The photos supplied in evidence confirm that the clothesline was rusty and at the end of its life. It is the landlord’s responsibility to replace a clothesline. There is insufficient evidence that the tenant caused the clothesline to deteriorate in any way. The landlord’s claim for a new clothesline is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Suppression
The landlord has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides 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 landlord has not substantially succeeded with the claim heard by the Tribunal and therefore name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297000 — net $108.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$108.00
Bond	$1,852.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$108.00

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Ireen And [The landlord/s] $108.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,852.54 (5788769-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Crockers Property Management Limited as agent for Ireen And [The landlord/s]: $108.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,744.54
An application for suppression has been made in this case. The Tribunal declines to order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties reached agreement about several matters at mediation. They did not reach agreement about the landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning, net curtain replacement, ceiling painting and clothesline replacement.

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. Cleaning
The landlord has claimed $402.50 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photos and an invoice from the company who carried out cleaning work at the premises. Having considered this evidence I am satisfied that the cleaning work in the garage, cleaning a light switch and cleaning a dishwasher panel is the extent of the tenant’s liability for cleaning. The evidence points to other items the landlord has claimed for being reasonably clean. I have assessed that $80.00 is a reasonable amount to pay for cleaning those items. Carpet patching and replacement
The landlord has claimed that the tenant has damaged the carpet in two areas because stains have not been able to be removed. The mediator’s order shows that the tenant has already paid $230.00 from the bond for carpet cleaning.
The landlord has not replaced or repaired the stained carpet, and a new tenant is occupying the property.
Stain removal from carpets often requires a specialist who is familiar with stain identification. A specialist uses particular solvents on particular stains. The company used for carpet cleaning in this case has not been identified by the landlord as being a specialist carpet stain removal contractor. The failure to use a specialist means that the landlord has not proved that the stains in the carpet could not be removed. In addition, (i) the stains are not sufficiently serious to warrant replacement carpet and (ii) the owner has not provided the property manager with an invoice to show the age of the carpet for depreciation purposes. The claim for the tenant to pay compensation for replacement carpet is dismissed. Net curtain replacement
The landlord has claimed that the tenant should replace the net curtains.
The tenant replaced the net curtains during the tenancy. The landlord is unhappy because the net curtains supplied by the tenant don’t match others in the house. In addition, one replacement net curtain was ripped during the tenancy.
The tenant stated that the net curtains were old at the start of the tenancy. She purchased the new net curtains shortly after the tenancy began because of the poor condition of the curtains.
There is little evidence regarding the condition of the net curtains at the start of the tenancy. However I am satisfied that the tenant would not have replaced curtains that were in perfectly good condition. The landlord has benefitted from the tenant purchasing replacement curtains and thereby delaying the landlord’s outlay for replacement net curtains. In addition, net curtains are given a deprecated life of three years. The landlord’s net curtains would have reached their depreciated life. The claim for the tenant to pay for net curtains is dismissed. Painting a bedroom ceiling.
The landlord has claimed that the tenant damaged a bedroom ceiling by attaching stickers to the ceiling. There was no evidence produced showing that the tenant had put stickers on the ceiling. The tenant stated that there were no stickers put on ceilings during the tenancy.
The evidence does not support the landlord’s claim. The peeling is localized and more consistent with a loose paint. The claim that the tenant damaged the ceiling is dismissed. Clothesline
The landlord has claimed that the tenant removed the clothesline. The tenant does not dispute that the clothesline was removed. She stated that it was agreed that her father could remove it because it was rusty and usable. The photos supplied in evidence confirm that the clothesline was rusty and at the end of its life. It is the landlord’s responsibility to replace a clothesline. There is insufficient evidence that the tenant caused the clothesline to deteriorate in any way. The landlord’s claim for a new clothesline is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Suppression
The landlord has applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides 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 landlord has not substantially succeeded with the claim heard by the Tribunal and therefore name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297000 — Cleanliness at 424 Roscommon Road, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297000 — Cleanliness at 424 Roscommon Road, Clendon Park, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Award balance

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions