How much money was awarded in case 5426230?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426230?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13720988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5426230?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426230?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13720988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426230 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426230 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
Pms No. 1 Limited T/As Property Management Solutions As Agent For M. Sampson must pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately, which is reimbursement of the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One of the tenants has died since the end of the tenancy. The remaining tenant appeared with a support person. The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has also applied for the refund of the bond and the filing fee. The tenant’s application sets out her defence to the landlord’s claims.

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

Tenants must 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 said that the tenants used a small prayer lamp during the tenancy which was smoky and sooty and left the walls and ceilings covered in black soot at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said the prayer lamp was only lit for about 15 minutes on Mondays and Fridays and she failed to see how such a small lamp, which did not smoke, could cause the marks showing in the photos. She said there could be any number of reasons for the marks at the end of the tenancy, including cooking, moisture, and ventilation.
Also relevant to me is the age of the paint. The landlord said the house was probably painted 3 – 4 years before this tenancy started in February 2018, which would make the paint more than 10 years old.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with two invoices and lots of photos. The claim is for many hours of cleaning the walls and the ceilings in most of the house. The photos from the start of the tenancy are quite dark and I cannot clearly see all the ceilings and walls. The photos taken at the end of the tenancy show some marks, particularly in the lounge. The photos which best show the marks are those taken part way through the cleaning, where the difference between cleaned and not yet cleaned is obvious.
I am not persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. The photos do not clearly show the condition of the ceilings and walls at the start of the tenancy. As the walls and ceilings were not fully wiped before the start of this tenancy there could be an accumulation of dust and dirt and general wear and tear from the previous tenancy as well. The age of the paint could also be a factor in why the surfaces were dull and looked dirty at the end of the tenancy, rather than the use of a prayer lamp. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenant has been substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant has asked 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 tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in the management of the bond refund process.

Order

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

Pms No. 1 Limited T/As Property Management Solutions As Agent For M. Sampson must pay [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately, which is reimbursement of the filing fee.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One of the tenants has died since the end of the tenancy. The remaining tenant appeared with a support person. The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has also applied for the refund of the bond and the filing fee. The tenant’s application sets out her defence to the landlord’s claims.

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

Tenants must 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 said that the tenants used a small prayer lamp during the tenancy which was smoky and sooty and left the walls and ceilings covered in black soot at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said the prayer lamp was only lit for about 15 minutes on Mondays and Fridays and she failed to see how such a small lamp, which did not smoke, could cause the marks showing in the photos. She said there could be any number of reasons for the marks at the end of the tenancy, including cooking, moisture, and ventilation.

Also relevant to me is the age of the paint. The landlord said the house was probably painted 3 – 4 years before this tenancy started in February 2018, which would make the paint more than 10 years old.

This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with two invoices and lots of photos. The claim is for many hours of cleaning the walls and the ceilings in most of the house. The photos from the start of the tenancy are quite dark and I cannot clearly see all the ceilings and walls. The photos taken at the end of the tenancy show some marks, particularly in the lounge. The photos which best show the marks are those taken part way through the cleaning, where the difference between cleaned and not yet cleaned is obvious.

I am not persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. The photos do not clearly show the condition of the ceilings and walls at the start of the tenancy. As the walls and ceilings were not fully wiped before the start of this tenancy there could be an accumulation of dust and dirt and general wear and tear from the previous tenancy as well. The age of the paint could also be a factor in why the surfaces were dull and looked dirty at the end of the tenancy, rather than the use of a prayer lamp. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed. Other orders

A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

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

The tenant has asked 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 tenants’ names are suppressed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in the management of the bond refund process.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426230 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426230 — Mould & damp

At a glance

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

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