What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393402 about?

The tribunal order states: Anamika Prashant Belwalkar to pay Morris and Co Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5393402?

Cleaning: $395.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393402?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393402?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13092320-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393402 about?

The tribunal order states: Anamika Prashant Belwalkar to pay Morris and Co Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5393402?

Cleaning: $395.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393402?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393402?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13092320-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 4, 137 Lichfield Street, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5393402 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393402 — net $645.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: reduced	$395.00	Cleaning: reduced
Replace furnishings: insurance excess for hob	$250.00	Replace furnishings: insurance excess for hob
Net award	$645.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$645.00

Anamika Prashant Belwalkar to pay Morris and Co Property Management Limited As The Agent For Maria Rickerby, Keryn & Myles O'Donnell $645.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6467689-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Morris and Co Property Management Limited As The Agent For Maria Rickerby, Keryn & Myles O'donnell: $645.00 Anamika Prashant Belwalkar: $1,555.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Davies attended for the landlord.

The tenant has applied for refund of her bond.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The initial tenancy agreement included a co-tenant who never moved into the property. That person’s name is still (erroneously) connected to the bond. That person has no entitlement to any bond monies and is not, and never was, a tenant at the premises.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.

The tenant gave evidence that she paid cleaners $270.00 to clean the property at the end of the tenancy. She contacted the landlord when the tenancy ended to make sure everything was up to the required standard. The landlord referred to three specific items (crumbs in a drawer, dishwasher filter and shower drain) that required further attention and said he would obtain a quotation for the cleaning.

The tenant made her own enquiries as to the cost to attend to these specific items. She gave evidence that the amount verbally quoted was $120.00 to $150.00.

The landlord did not come back to the tenant but rather engaged cleaners who gave the property (which was furnished with a fully kitted out kitchen) a deep clean, including oven cleaning and the use of a rug doctor for the carpets at a cost of $940.00.

The landlord said that the specific items referred to were examples of unsatisfactory items rather than an exhaustive list.

The tenant said she had put all kitchen items through the dishwasher at the late stages of the tenancy (repeated by the landlord’s cleaners). She had also put the extractor fan filters through the dishwasher and cleaned the fan (also repeated by the landlord’s cleaners).

She said she should not be responsible for the exterior windows as these are cleaned regularly by the building Body Corporate.

The amount on the invoice was $940.00. This included outdoor windows of approximately $75.00 which the landlord agreed should be withdrawn, leaving $865.00.

The invoice also included $200.00 for a rug doctor. The landlord produced a photo to show a purported carpet stain in one bedroom. The photo was not clear enough to determine if this was a stain or a shadow and the tenant denied there was any stain to that area of carpet. She said there were no carpet stains mentioned in any inspection.

There is insufficient evidence to confirm that a rug doctor was a necessity at the end of the tenancy. The $200.00 claimed for this is also deleted leaving $665.00.

The tenant accepts that the cleaning fell short in some areas and was not sure if her cleaners had cleaned the oven so accepted costs up to $200.00 for the oven and those three areas specified by the landlord at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord considered that the property fell well short of reasonably clean and tidy in many areas and that the full invoice amount was justified (less the outside windows).

The requirement is for a property to be left reasonably clean and tidy, not for a deep clean. There is no evidence to show that every item of kitchenware had to be cleaned again. The photographs provided by the landlord seem to support the tenant’s contention regarding the kitchen hob.

Some areas of the cleaning clearly did fall short, but the level of cleaning completed was excessive. A deep clean may be preferred by a landlord but is not required of a tenant.

The number of hours charged has been halved to allow for time completing the rug doctor cleaning and the “deep clean” aspects of the invoice, this reduces the amount ordered to $395.00 in total.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A small injury to a plastered gib wall b. Permanent damage to a ceramic hob element

The tenant said that the damage to the wall occurred when she was moving out of the property. She acknowledged that she had caused this damage but thought it was wear and tear and/or accidental.

The damage is approximately 2-3 centimetres at most but has removed the paint and plaster also exposing the gib.

The landlord provided a quote for repair to the mark and repainting the entire wall to colour match ($446.20). The landlord acknowledged that the work has not been completed as yet.

It is to be expected that there may be some minor damage to walls after a two- year tenancy. The damage is no more than fair wear and tear and the tenant should not be liable for the cost of repairing and repainting the whole wall.

The landlord claimed the insurance excess for a replacement hob (being $250.00).

The tenant acknowledged that she had allowed milk to overflow causing damage to the hob element early on in the tenancy. She had attempted to clean the hob but this had been unsuccessful. Nothing further was done at the time.

The tenant confirmed that the landlord had arranged for someone to try to clean this professionally towards the end of the tenancy. This professional had advised that the damage could not be cleaned off as it had removed a layer of the ceramic coating, and the hob would have to be replaced.

The tenant considered that the landlord should have attended to this when the damage was caused rather then at the end of the tenancy some years later. She also said that the hob still worked, and she had been using it with no issues all throughout the balance of the tenancy.

When the hob was unable to be cleaned and the landlord was advised that the coating had been removed, they determined to make an insurance claim thereby replacing the item but also minimising costs to the tenant.

The premises was relatively new when this tenant moved in (three to four years old). The hob, although functional, was badly damaged and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.

The tenant has not proven she did not carelessly cause or permit the damage. The tenant is liable for the costs of the insurance excess in relation to the replacement hob. ($250.00).

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fees and name suppression

As each party has had some success, I have left filing fees where they fall.

The landlord asked for name suppression on its application but as it has not been wholly, or substantially, successful no suppression is ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393402 — net $645.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: reduced	$395.00	Cleaning: reduced
Replace furnishings: insurance excess for hob	$250.00	Replace furnishings: insurance excess for hob
Net award	$645.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$645.00