What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426610 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5426610?

Cleaning: $502.58 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Rent Credit: $198.72 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $19,357.80 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,111.76 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $527.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426610?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529873-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426610 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5426610?

Cleaning: $502.58 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Rent Credit: $198.72 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $19,357.80 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,111.76 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $527.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426610?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529873-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426610 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426610 — net $22,301.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$502.58		Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Soil	$2,111.76		Rubbish removal: Soil
Rubbish removal: 110m3	$19,357.80		Rubbish removal: 110m3
Rubbish removal: Steel frame wheelbarrows pavers rocks	$527.94		Rubbish removal: Steel frame wheelbarrows pavers rocks
Compensation: Rent credit		$198.72	Rent credit
Total award	$22,500.08	$198.72
Net award	$22,301.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$22,301.36

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.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

A rent credit of $198.72 exists and that is applied against the debt. Background

This tenancy has been before the Tribunal numerous times before a final termination order ended it after a landlord application.

The issue of accumulated rubbish was evident early and throughout the tenancy. Numerous opportunities were provided for the tenant to remove the rubbish. It appears beyond his capabilities. The landlord is recorded in a previous order as saying it had spent over $23,000 during the tenancy to assist the tenant with rubbish removal but that the tenant had continued to accumulate rubbish.

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 premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided exit photos that establish the need for a full house clean. The invoiced cost of this is awarded.

The rubbish and abandoned items evidenced by the photographs are considerable. Using the terms “rubbish” and “items” do not do justice to what was a wide range of detritus piled or stacked in what appears to be almost every available outdoor space. That detritus extended into ground soil that had to be removed and replaced as sifting for removal was not practical. The evidence and explanation from the landlord justify what are the large costs of removal and disposal incurred by the landlord and now sought recovered from the tenant.

I note the costs sought are not that different from the costs previously incurred and absorbed by the landlord during the tenancy.

The amounts ordered are proved. Name 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.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.

I must grant tenant name suppression to ensure that previous suppression orders made by the Tribunal relating to the same tenancy are not breached.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426610 — net $22,301.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$502.58		Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Soil	$2,111.76		Rubbish removal: Soil
Rubbish removal: 110m3	$19,357.80		Rubbish removal: 110m3
Rubbish removal: Steel frame wheelbarrows pavers rocks	$527.94		Rubbish removal: Steel frame wheelbarrows pavers rocks
Compensation: Rent credit		$198.72	Rent credit
Total award	$22,500.08	$198.72
Net award	$22,301.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$22,301.36

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $22,301.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

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.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
A rent credit of $198.72 exists and that is applied against the debt. Background
This tenancy has been before the Tribunal numerous times before a final termination order ended it after a landlord application.
The issue of accumulated rubbish was evident early and throughout the tenancy. Numerous opportunities were provided for the tenant to remove the rubbish. It appears beyond his capabilities. The landlord is recorded in a previous order as saying it had spent over $23,000 during the tenancy to assist the tenant with rubbish removal but that the tenant had continued to accumulate rubbish.

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 premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided exit photos that establish the need for a full house clean. The invoiced cost of this is awarded.
The rubbish and abandoned items evidenced by the photographs are considerable. Using the terms “rubbish” and “items” do not do justice to what was a wide range of detritus piled or stacked in what appears to be almost every available outdoor space. That detritus extended into ground soil that had to be removed and replaced as sifting for removal was not practical. The evidence and explanation from the landlord justify what are the large costs of removal and disposal incurred by the landlord and now sought recovered from the tenant.
I note the costs sought are not that different from the costs previously incurred and absorbed by the landlord during the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Name 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.
I must grant tenant name suppression to ensure that previous suppression orders made by the Tribunal relating to the same tenancy are not breached.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426610 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426610 — Cleanliness

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

Key findings

Property management

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

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions