How much money was awarded in case 5300264?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Over Paid Rent: $130.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300264?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12593321-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5300264?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Of Over Paid Rent: $130.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300264?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300264?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12593321-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 3, 213 The Terrace, Wellington Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300264 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300264 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300264 — net $158.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of over paid rent	$130.00	Reimbursement of over paid rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$158.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$158.00

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

Property Management Wellington Limited As Agent For Platinum Property Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $158.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This tenancy has ended. The landlord took a $130 cleaning fee out of a credit in the tenant’s rent account at the end of the tenancy. The bond was refunded in full. The tenant does not agree to the cleaning charge. He has also claimed exemplary damages because the landlord failed to use the proper bond process, and compensation for the costs of preparing for the hearing.

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

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.

Both parties provided me with photos. I find the tenant left the premises in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy. I note that tenants are not required to move appliances and clean under and around them. Cleaning ceilings and fittings on the ceilings is maintenance, which is a landlord responsibility. In this particular case I find removing dust from cracked paint is also a landlord’s responsibility, because of the risk of further damage to the paint and the underlying surface.

This means the landlord must reimburse the money taken from the over paid rent.

Did the landlord act unlawfully?

The tenant said the landlord acted unlawfully by not following the proper process to claim the money for cleaning. Usually a claim would be made against the bond, but here the landlord took advantage of a rent overpayment. I note this was done without consent and has caused the tenant a lot of stress. I find the landlord should not have taken money from the rent credit without consent, but I cannot find anywhere in the RTA which states this is an unlawful act. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Other orders

Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. See section 102(4) RTA.

Section 102 does not allow me to make an order for compensation for time and the costs of preparing for a tribunal hearing. The claim for $200 compensation is dismissed.

The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when money has to be paid to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300264 — net $158.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Reimbursement of over paid rent	$130.00	Reimbursement of over paid rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$158.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$158.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Property Management Wellington Limited As Agent For Platinum Property Trust must pay [The tenant/s] $158.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy has ended. The landlord took a $130 cleaning fee out of a credit in the tenant’s rent account at the end of the tenancy. The bond was refunded in full. The tenant does not agree to the cleaning charge. He has also claimed exemplary damages because the landlord failed to use the proper bond process, and compensation for the costs of preparing for the hearing.

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

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.
Both parties provided me with photos. I find the tenant left the premises in a reasonable condition at the end of the tenancy. I note that tenants are not required to move appliances and clean under and around them. Cleaning ceilings and fittings on the ceilings is maintenance, which is a landlord responsibility. In this particular case I find removing dust from cracked paint is also a landlord’s responsibility, because of the risk of further damage to the paint and the underlying surface.
This means the landlord must reimburse the money taken from the over paid rent.

Did the landlord act unlawfully?

The tenant said the landlord acted unlawfully by not following the proper process to claim the money for cleaning. Usually a claim would be made against the bond, but here the landlord took advantage of a rent overpayment. I note this was done without consent and has caused the tenant a lot of stress. I find the landlord should not have taken money from the rent credit without consent, but I cannot find anywhere in the RTA which states this is an unlawful act. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. See section 102(4) RTA.
Section 102 does not allow me to make an order for compensation for time and the costs of preparing for a tribunal hearing. The claim for $200 compensation is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenant is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when money has to be paid to the tenant at the end of the tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300264 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 213 The Terrace, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300264 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 3, 213 The Terrace, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Did the landlord act unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Did the landlord act unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions