How much money was awarded in case 5394342?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $800.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394342?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13052368-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5394342?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $800.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394342?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13052368-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5394342 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5394342 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 5394342 — net $378.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$750.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$800.49	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$378.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$378.49

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

Tessa Courtney Tyler must pay [The landlord/s] $378.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The tenant application 5364561 is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.

A person identifying themselves as a sister of the tenant made contact with Tenancy Services earlier today. The person advised the tenant was in hospital. The advice given was that a request for adjournment, with evidence of hospitalisation, should be sent to the Tribunal Registry. Nothing was received.

The notice of hearing details are copied below:

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 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 tenant did not leave the outside area of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided an invoice and exit photos. These were reviewed in detail. I am satisfied the effort to remedy both issues have been established by the evidence and that evidence supports the claim of tenant liability for the cost incurred..

I noted in the files it was obvious the tenant was struggling with finding an alternative home and sought an extension from the landlord. Given the scheduled contractor works at the premises there was an inability to accommodate that request.

I queried the landlord as to why, given the vacate was to be followed by contractor works, the tenant might not have been provided with an opportunity to return and remedy the obvious issues (see s 49 RTA – mitigation of loss).

The landlord pointed out the need for a possession order (TT5363522) as the tenant remained after the end date, as well as a history of prior notices to the tenant to remedy the same issues that required remediation after vacating. These are both considered reasonable grounds to adopt the approach as here.

The costs awarded have been proved. Tenant application dismissed

The tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Given that, the tenant application 5364561 is dismissed for non-appearance. Filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5394342 — net $378.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$750.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$800.49	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$378.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$378.49

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Tessa Courtney Tyler must pay [The landlord/s] $378.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant application 5364561 is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing.
A person identifying themselves as a sister of the tenant made contact with Tenancy Services earlier today. The person advised the tenant was in hospital. The advice given was that a request for adjournment, with evidence of hospitalisation, should be sent to the Tribunal Registry. Nothing was received.
The notice of hearing details are copied below:
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 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 tenant did not leave the outside area of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an invoice and exit photos. These were reviewed in detail. I am satisfied the effort to remedy both issues have been established by the evidence and that evidence supports the claim of tenant liability for the cost incurred..
I noted in the files it was obvious the tenant was struggling with finding an alternative home and sought an extension from the landlord. Given the scheduled contractor works at the premises there was an inability to accommodate that request.
I queried the landlord as to why, given the vacate was to be followed by contractor works, the tenant might not have been provided with an opportunity to return and remedy the obvious issues (see s 49 RTA – mitigation of loss).
The landlord pointed out the need for a possession order (TT5363522) as the tenant remained after the end date, as well as a history of prior notices to the tenant to remedy the same issues that required remediation after vacating. These are both considered reasonable grounds to adopt the approach as here.
The costs awarded have been proved. Tenant application dismissed
The tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Given that, the tenant application 5364561 is dismissed for non-appearance. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394342 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394342 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions