How much money was awarded in case 5436669?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436669?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13451336-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5436669?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436669?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13451336-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436669 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436669 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436669 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$250.00
Bond	$4,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.00

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Shuang Li & Jingsheng Zhang $250.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Shuang Li & Jingsheng Zhang: $250.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,750.00

The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

The tenants have claimed full reimbursement of their bond.

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.

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenants maintain that they left the position cleaner and tidier than they received it. In general, the photographs support the tenant’s position.

The condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy was poor. While the landlord addressed most issues after the tenant’s raised concerns, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord held these tenants to a higher standard than it applied to itself. Further the photographs do not establish that the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, particularly having regard to the age and condition of the property.

That said, I find that the oven was less clean than at the start of the tenancy and that there was weeding required. In determining an amount payable for gardening, I note the in-going condition report showing ivy through the gardens and the tenant’s evidence of finding broken bottles throughout the lawn. I award $150 for cleaning and $100 for lawn and garden work.

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 claimed the cost of paint touch ups and a power reconnection charge.

The paintwork was old and in poor condition at the start of the tenancy. I accept the tenant’s evidence that one wall which appear to have been damaged, has been partially repaired by a landlord’s contractor during the tenancy. The tenant’s explanation is consistent with the chronology of photographs referred to me at the hearing. The landlord has not established any damage occurred beyond normal wear and tear. The claim for “touch ups” is dismissed.

The landlord also claimed a power reconnection fee but did not establish why a reconnection was required or how this relates to any breach of the tenant’s obligations. The tenant’s paid their power bills during their occupancy and arranged for their account to be closed at the end of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed.

As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either filing fee. The tenants were substantially successful, so I have supressed their details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5436669 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$250.00
Bond	$4,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Shuang Li & Jingsheng Zhang $250.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Shuang Li & Jingsheng Zhang: $250.00 [The tenant/s]: $3,750.00
The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have claimed full reimbursement of their bond.

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.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenants maintain that they left the position cleaner and tidier than they received it. In general, the photographs support the tenant’s position.
The condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy was poor. While the landlord addressed most issues after the tenant’s raised concerns, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord held these tenants to a higher standard than it applied to itself. Further the photographs do not establish that the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy, particularly having regard to the age and condition of the property.
That said, I find that the oven was less clean than at the start of the tenancy and that there was weeding required. In determining an amount payable for gardening, I note the in-going condition report showing ivy through the gardens and the tenant’s evidence of finding broken bottles throughout the lawn. I award $150 for cleaning and $100 for lawn and garden work.

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 claimed the cost of paint touch ups and a power reconnection charge.
The paintwork was old and in poor condition at the start of the tenancy. I accept the tenant’s evidence that one wall which appear to have been damaged, has been partially repaired by a landlord’s contractor during the tenancy. The tenant’s explanation is consistent with the chronology of photographs referred to me at the hearing. The landlord has not established any damage occurred beyond normal wear and tear. The claim for “touch ups” is dismissed.
The landlord also claimed a power reconnection fee but did not establish why a reconnection was required or how this relates to any breach of the tenant’s obligations. The tenant’s paid their power bills during their occupancy and arranged for their account to be closed at the end of the tenancy. The claim is dismissed.
As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either filing fee. The tenants were substantially successful, so I have supressed their details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436669 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436669 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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