What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5361826?

The tribunal order states: H C Booker Farms Limited must pay Carl William Godwin $2,068.00

How much money was awarded in case 5361826?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361826?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361826?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12983551-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5361826?

The tribunal order states: H C Booker Farms Limited must pay Carl William Godwin $2,068.00

How much money was awarded in case 5361826?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361826?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361826?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12983551-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2221 Buckland Road, RD 4, Tuakau 2694 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361826 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

2221 Buckland Road, RD 4, Tuakau 2694 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361826 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361826 — net $2,068.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond	$2,040.00	Refund of the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,068.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,068.00

Claims and awards for application 5361826 — net $2,068.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Refund of the bond

Amount: $2,040.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Refund of the bond

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $2,068.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $2,068.00

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

H C Booker Farms Limited must pay Carl William Godwin $2,068.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenant also wants the bond returned.
The landlord has claimed $2040 for cleaning and $124 for rubbish removal. The tenant does not agree to the claims. This is the landlord’s claim to prove, which means the landlord has to have the better evidence.
Tenants are required 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 did not have any photos from the end of the tenancy. I have read the statement provided by the new tenant and accept the tenant’s evidence that he did leave some rubbish and missed some cleaning. However it is very hard for me to decide if the claims are reasonable without photos. I find the claims have not been proved and are dismissed. The bond should be refunded in full to the tenant
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee.

Who should pay the bond?

The parties explained that the bond money was stolen by the property manager early on in the tenancy. That property management company, One Agency Counties Realty Limited, is in liquidation. The tenant said he has talked with the liquidators and there is no money for a bond refund.
I find H C Booker Farms Ltd should return the bond money because the landlord was named on the tenancy agreement. This is also because it was the landlord’s agent who did wrong, so it would be very unfair for the tenant to miss out. Suppression
The landlord made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords are not successful with large claims for cleaning.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361826 — net $2,068.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of the bond	$2,040.00	Refund of the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,068.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,068.00

Claims and awards for application 5361826 — net $2,068.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Refund of the bond

Amount: $2,040.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Refund of the bond

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $2,068.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $2,068.00

Dismissed claims

Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee

Order

H C Booker Farms Limited must pay Carl William Godwin $2,068.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenant also wants the bond returned.
The landlord has claimed $2040 for cleaning and $124 for rubbish removal. The tenant does not agree to the claims. This is the landlord’s claim to prove, which means the landlord has to have the better evidence.
Tenants are required 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 did not have any photos from the end of the tenancy. I have read the statement provided by the new tenant and accept the tenant’s evidence that he did leave some rubbish and missed some cleaning. However it is very hard for me to decide if the claims are reasonable without photos. I find the claims have not been proved and are dismissed. The bond should be refunded in full to the tenant
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee.

Who should pay the bond?

The parties explained that the bond money was stolen by the property manager early on in the tenancy. That property management company, One Agency Counties Realty Limited, is in liquidation. The tenant said he has talked with the liquidators and there is no money for a bond refund.
I find H C Booker Farms Ltd should return the bond money because the landlord was named on the tenancy agreement. This is also because it was the landlord’s agent who did wrong, so it would be very unfair for the tenant to miss out. Suppression
The landlord made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords are not successful with large claims for cleaning.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361826 — Tenancy dispute at 2221 Buckland Road, RD 4, Tuakau 2694

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361826 — Tenancy dispute at 2221 Buckland Road, RD 4, Tuakau 2694

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who should pay the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Who should pay the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions