How much money was awarded in case 5297008?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297008?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12520231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5297008?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297008?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12520231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297008 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297008 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

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

The application and the cross application are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The tenant also applied for compensation, exemplary damages, and refund of the bond. Time tabling orders were made at a case conference held in September. The tenant did not meet the timetabling requirements, meaning the landlord did not have a chance to prepare a defence to the claims. The tenant’s cross application was dismissed at the hearing because it would have been unfair to the landlord to hear the claims.

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

There is a claim for cleaning and carpet cleaning. The is the landlord’s claim to prove. The tenant did not accept the claim because she said she cleaned the house and the carpets. She had a receipt for a rug doctor and a written statement from her mother, who helped with the cleaning on the last day.

The law states that tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).

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 RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

I was provided with photos taken at the start of tenancy and photos taken at the final inspection. I accept a windowsill, a drawer in a vanity, the cutlery drawer, a kitchen cupboard, and two corners of floor should have been cleaned better. I estimate the total time it would have taken to wipe these again would have been about 15 minutes. I find, on balance, that the house was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The claim for cleaning is dismissed.

As to the carpet cleaning, I am persuaded by the tenant’s submission that the carpets look worn and two toned in the ingoing photos. It seems most likely to me the photos taken at the end of the tenancy show fair wear and tear rather than dirt. The claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairing a wall in the garage. The landlord said the wall was gouged during the tenancy. The tenant agreed she had a table and chairs against that piece of wall which could have caused the damage.

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.

I have considered the photos. I find the landlord has not proved the damage is more than fair wear and tear. I further note the damage is in the garage and the repair has not been completed yet, even though the house is on the market. The claim for damage is dismissed. Other orders

I have used my discretion and allowed suppression for the tenant because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because I find there is public interest in names when landlords claim money from the bond but are not successful. See section 95A RTA.

I have sent a request to the Bond Centre.

Order

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

The application and the cross application are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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 her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I have sent a request to the Bond Centre.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297008 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297008 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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