What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384422 about?

The tribunal order states: Srikrishnan Ramamurthy, Samar Jit, Aparna Pradeep Samarjit and Meena

How much money was awarded in case 5384422?

Cleaning: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Painting & Contribution To Vanity: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384422?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13198951-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384422 about?

The tribunal order states: Srikrishnan Ramamurthy, Samar Jit, Aparna Pradeep Samarjit and Meena

How much money was awarded in case 5384422?

Cleaning: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Painting & Contribution To Vanity: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384422?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384422?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13198951-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

128 Alfriston Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5384422 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384422 — net $1,598.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$161.00	Carpet Cleaning
Curtain Cleaning	$287.50	Curtain Cleaning
Repairs: Painting & Contribution to Vanity	$900.00	Repairs: Painting & Contribution to Vanity
Net award	$1,598.50
Bond	$3,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,598.50

Srikrishnan Ramamurthy, Samar Jit, Aparna Pradeep Samarjit and Meena Rukmini Menon to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As The Agent For S Motwani $1,598.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,300.00 (5718362-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As The Agent For S Motwani: $1,598.50 Srikrishnan Ramamurthy, Samar Jit, Aparna Pradeep Samarjit and Meena Rukmini Menon: $1,701.50

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 disputes the claims.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (emphasis added)

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant says that it engaged its own commercial cleaner and had the carpets cleaned.

The standard is reasonably clean. It is not pristine, or commercially clean. The standard applies whether the tenant has engaged its own cleaner, or not.

The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy and a receipt for “cleaning” of $632.50. Having regard to the photographs, I accept that there was some cleaning required after the tenant left, but not to the extent claimed by the landlord. I award $250.00 for general cleaning.

I have allowed the landlord’s claims for carpet stain removal and curtain cleaning. There were stain marks on both, which appear to be more than the result of normal, everyday use. The receipts provided are consistent with similar claims in the Tribunal.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.

The landlord’s application sought compensation of $2,500.10 for repairs. At the start of the hearing, I indicated that the landlord would need to establish each item of damage and the repair cost. The landlord’s representative said that the invoice for $2,550.10 was for painting touch ups and those were the only areas of damage she spoke about in relation to that invoice.

In response, the tenant noted that the invoice included a vanity and said that it should not have to pay for that. The landlord then made a claim for the vanity. I heard that claim, but note that the invoice also included rehanging curtains, new door stops, removal of pavers and supply of topsoil, cleaning the garage door, and cleaning gutters and fascia. The costs were not itemised.

Having regard to the photographs, most of the paint “damage” is normal scuff marks, bumps and general wear and tear that comes from living in a home. There are a few larger marks that go beyond wear and tear. There was water damage at the base of the vanity, but I am not satisfied that the damage warranted full vanity replacement. Having regard to the ingoing and outgoing photographs, the lack of itemised costing in the invoice and other claims in the Tribunal, I award $800 for the vanity and paintwork. The landlord’s representative did not speak to the other items listed in the invoice, so any claims in relation to those matters are not proved and are dismissed.

The landlord also claimed $345 for a window frame repair and $250 for a carpet patch repair. Neither of those claims were proved and are dismissed. The landlord did not establish that the carpet needed to be patched, or that the window frame issue was more than fair wear and tear (or was not a maintenance issue)

As the landlord was partially successful, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5384422 — net $1,598.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$161.00	Carpet Cleaning
Curtain Cleaning	$287.50	Curtain Cleaning
Repairs: Painting & Contribution to Vanity	$900.00	Repairs: Painting & Contribution to Vanity
Net award	$1,598.50
Bond	$3,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,598.50

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

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 disputes the claims.

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

The standard is reasonably clean. It is not pristine, or commercially clean. The standard applies whether the tenant has engaged its own cleaner, or not.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

As the landlord was partially successful, I have also awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384422 — Property damage at 128 Alfriston Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384422 — Property damage at 128 Alfriston Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their 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

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their 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