How much money was awarded in case 5342755?

Cleaning: $879.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342755?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342755?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12882529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5342755?

Cleaning: $879.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342755?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342755?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12882529-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

169A Pembroke Road, Wilton, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342755 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342755 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 5342755 — net $1,407.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$879.75	Cleaning
Cleaning: additional	$250.00	Cleaning: additional
Rubbish removal	$250.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,407.75
Bond	$1,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,407.75

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

Tracy Rene du Plooy to pay [The landlord/s] $1,407.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,407.75 Tracy Rene du Plooy: $512.25

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and the owner attended the hearing. The tenant was contacted on the number provided but she did not answer the call.

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?

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).

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.

At the end of the tenancy the landlord arranged for a commercial cleaner to attend and clean. I have seen photos taken by the landlord at the final inspection. The house was left in an unclean condition. I find the claim for commercial cleaning is proved and allowed. The invoice includes cleaning the windows from the outside, which is usually a landlord maintenance job between tenancies. However, I find the amount ordered is reasonable for the other work done.

The owner has claimed for additional cleaning to get the house to a reasonable condition. I have not been provided with many photos to support this claim. The photos I have support an additional $250 for both labour and cleaning materials.

The owner has claimed the cost of collecting rubbish and removing it. Again I have very few photos. I find the photos support an order for $250 for the labour and cost of rubbish removal.

The rest of the claim for returning the house to a reasonable condition is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairs. The 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.

There is a claim for repairs to a kitchen drawer, to the dishwasher, to the fridge, to the cupboard under the sink, to some handles, to the oven, to a hole which allowed rodents into the house, and to the walls in bedroom two. I have been provided with photos. I can see the house and the appliances are old. This tenancy lasted 4 years. I find all if these claims to be fair wear and tear and they are dismissed. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The tenants name will be published because there is public interest when tenants owe money at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342755 — net $1,407.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$879.75	Cleaning
Cleaning: additional	$250.00	Cleaning: additional
Rubbish removal	$250.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,407.75
Bond	$1,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,407.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s names and identifying details.
Tracy Rene du Plooy to pay [The landlord/s] $1,407.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,407.75 Tracy Rene du Plooy: $512.25
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and the owner attended the hearing. The tenant was contacted on the number provided but she did not answer the call.
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?

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).
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.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord arranged for a commercial cleaner to attend and clean. I have seen photos taken by the landlord at the final inspection. The house was left in an unclean condition. I find the claim for commercial cleaning is proved and allowed. The invoice includes cleaning the windows from the outside, which is usually a landlord maintenance job between tenancies. However, I find the amount ordered is reasonable for the other work done.
The owner has claimed for additional cleaning to get the house to a reasonable condition. I have not been provided with many photos to support this claim. The photos I have support an additional $250 for both labour and cleaning materials.
The owner has claimed the cost of collecting rubbish and removing it. Again I have very few photos. I find the photos support an order for $250 for the labour and cost of rubbish removal.
The rest of the claim for returning the house to a reasonable condition is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for repairs. The 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.
There is a claim for repairs to a kitchen drawer, to the dishwasher, to the fridge, to the cupboard under the sink, to some handles, to the oven, to a hole which allowed rodents into the house, and to the walls in bedroom two. I have been provided with photos. I can see the house and the appliances are old. This tenancy lasted 4 years. I find all if these claims to be fair wear and tear and they are dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The tenants name will be published because there is public interest when tenants owe money at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342755 — Cleanliness at 169A Pembroke Road, Wilton, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342755 — Cleanliness at 169A Pembroke Road, Wilton, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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