How much money was awarded in case 5360808?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lease Break Fee: $479.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Subsidy By Consent: $840.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360808?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12895848-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5360808?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lease Break Fee: $479.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Subsidy By Consent: $840.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360808?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12895848-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Arney Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360808 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360808 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 5360808 — net $1,427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent subsidy by consent	$840.00	Rent subsidy by consent
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Lease break fee	$479.00	Lease break fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,427.00
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,427.00

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

Hamish Witters and Helen Ker to pay [The landlord/s] $1,427.00 from the bond, calculated as shown:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,427.00 Hamish Witters and Helen Ker: $1,253.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, reasonable costs, and refund of the bond following the early end of the fixed term tenancy. The tenants do not agree to the claims. The parties do agree the rent subsidy can be taken from the bond.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

There is a claim for $138 for cleaning after the end of the tenancy. The tenants don’t want to pay because they arranged to go back to complete additional cleaning and remove some sound proofing. When they arrived at the house the cleaners arranged by the landlord were there a day early. I find the tenants are responsible for the cost of any additional cleaning because they knew the final inspection was being done and the house should have been left in a reasonable condition at that time.

The law requires tenants to 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.

The landlord provided me with photos. I find the sound proofing should have been removed. I find $80 is a reasonable amount to remove the material and the sticky tape.

All other claims for additional cleaning are dismissed. The photos do not support the claim for cleaning the floors. The cleaner had to do some additional wiping and I estimate the amount of time to wipe would have been 10 minutes. It seems most likely to me the house was left reasonably clean and tidy. The remainder of the cleaning claim is dismissed. Can the landlord recover the expenses incurred in respect of the early termination as provided by section 44A RTA?

The landlord has claimed the expenses incurred in respect of the termination under section 50(1)(d) RTA. A new tenancy agreement was signed. The landlord provided an itemised account. The tenants submitted the hourly rate was too high, but they did not have any supporting information about usual hourly rates for property managers in Wellington. The rates were also disclosed in an email to the tenants before the landlord readvertised.

I find the advertising, the credit check, the viewings, the reference check and the time to do the final inspection are reasonable costs in these circumstances. I do not find the tenants should pay for the time drafting the new tenancy agreement, for lodging the bond, or for the ingoing inspection. I find these should be a landlord cost because the landlord has a new 12 month tenancy rather than an assignment of the existing tenancy.

I have calculated the reasonable costs and used the same 25% goodwill discount applied by the landlord because there were only three months left in the tenancy. Other orders

A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

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

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5360808 — net $1,427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent subsidy by consent	$840.00	Rent subsidy by consent
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Lease break fee	$479.00	Lease break fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,427.00
Bond	$2,680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,427.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Hamish Witters and Helen Ker to pay [The landlord/s] $1,427.00 from the bond, calculated as shown:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,427.00 Hamish Witters and Helen Ker: $1,253.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, reasonable costs, and refund of the bond following the early end of the fixed term tenancy. The tenants do not agree to the claims. The parties do agree the rent subsidy can be taken from the bond.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

There is a claim for $138 for cleaning after the end of the tenancy. The tenants don’t want to pay because they arranged to go back to complete additional cleaning and remove some sound proofing. When they arrived at the house the cleaners arranged by the landlord were there a day early. I find the tenants are responsible for the cost of any additional cleaning because they knew the final inspection was being done and the house should have been left in a reasonable condition at that time.
The law requires tenants to 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.
The landlord provided me with photos. I find the sound proofing should have been removed. I find $80 is a reasonable amount to remove the material and the sticky tape.
All other claims for additional cleaning are dismissed. The photos do not support the claim for cleaning the floors. The cleaner had to do some additional wiping and I estimate the amount of time to wipe would have been 10 minutes. It seems most likely to me the house was left reasonably clean and tidy. The remainder of the cleaning claim is dismissed. Can the landlord recover the expenses incurred in respect of the early termination as provided by section 44A RTA?
The landlord has claimed the expenses incurred in respect of the termination under section 50(1)(d) RTA. A new tenancy agreement was signed. The landlord provided an itemised account. The tenants submitted the hourly rate was too high, but they did not have any supporting information about usual hourly rates for property managers in Wellington. The rates were also disclosed in an email to the tenants before the landlord readvertised.
I find the advertising, the credit check, the viewings, the reference check and the time to do the final inspection are reasonable costs in these circumstances. I do not find the tenants should pay for the time drafting the new tenancy agreement, for lodging the bond, or for the ingoing inspection. I find these should be a landlord cost because the landlord has a new 12 month tenancy rather than an assignment of the existing tenancy.
I have calculated the reasonable costs and used the same 25% goodwill discount applied by the landlord because there were only three months left in the tenancy. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360808 — Cleanliness at 17 Arney Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360808 — Cleanliness at 17 Arney Street, Newtown, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions