How much money was awarded in case 5496290?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $168.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496290?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13899569-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5496290?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $168.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496290?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13899569-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Ranger Street, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496290 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496290 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Birds Nest Property Management Limited As

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496290 — net $243.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$168.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$243.00
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$243.00

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Birds Nest Property Management Limited As Agent For Mr And [The landlord/s] And [The landlord/s] $243.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (BN-00070120) immediately apportioned as follows: Birds Nest Property Management Limited As Agent For Mr And [The landlord/s] And [The landlord/s]: $243.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,117.00

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The tenant also alleged that the landlord attempted to claim a letting fee.

The letting fee claim related to a discussion an employee of the landlord had with a friend of the tenant. There was no direct evidence of the landlord trying to claim a letting fee from this tenant. The claim is dismissed.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant accepts the claim for rubbish removal.

The tenant engaged a cleaner recommended by the landlord. The tenant agreed to pay $200 and expected to the premises to be at the standard the landlord expected. During the cleaning process the landlord’s representative began engaging directly with the cleaner, asking for additional tasks to be done. The cleaner (not the landlord) communicated with the tenant and said that the tenant would pay her the $200 and she would “do the rest through [the landlord]”.

The landlord now claims a further $245.00 from the tenant for cleaning. The landlord provided photographs which it says show the extra cleaning work required. The tenant says the photographs are from before his portion of the cleaning was complete. The landlord also provided an email to the cleaner with a list of additional cleaning items. There is little overlap between the photographs and the email.

The landlord has the onus of establishing that additional cleaning was required after the cleaner had completed her cleaning for the tenant. Having reviewed the photographs and contemporaneous emails, I find that some extra cleaning was required, but not to the extent claimed. I award $75.00 for cleaning.

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 claims that the living room ceiling was damaged during the tenancy. It claims $776.25 for repairs that have not been carried out. There is some evidence of paint chips or scuffs on the ceiling, shown on close up photographs, at the end of the tenancy. The marks are not evident in in-going photographs or routine inspection photographs taken at a usual distance during the tenancy. There is no evidence of the tenant having stuck or blu-taked anything to the living room ceiling during the tenancy.

The landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that the tenant has caused damage to the living room ceiling that is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that it has suffered the loss claimed.

The claim for painting is dismissed.

As each party was partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496290 — net $243.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$168.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$243.00
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$243.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Birds Nest Property Management Limited As Agent For Mr And [The landlord/s] And [The landlord/s] $243.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (BN-00070120) immediately apportioned as follows: Birds Nest Property Management Limited As Agent For Mr And [The landlord/s] And [The landlord/s]: $243.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $2,117.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The tenant also alleged that the landlord attempted to claim a letting fee.
The letting fee claim related to a discussion an employee of the landlord had with a friend of the tenant. There was no direct evidence of the landlord trying to claim a letting fee from this tenant. The claim is dismissed.
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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant accepts the claim for rubbish removal.
The tenant engaged a cleaner recommended by the landlord. The tenant agreed to pay $200 and expected to the premises to be at the standard the landlord expected. During the cleaning process the landlord’s representative began engaging directly with the cleaner, asking for additional tasks to be done. The cleaner (not the landlord) communicated with the tenant and said that the tenant would pay her the $200 and she would “do the rest through [the landlord]”.
The landlord now claims a further $245.00 from the tenant for cleaning. The landlord provided photographs which it says show the extra cleaning work required. The tenant says the photographs are from before his portion of the cleaning was complete. The landlord also provided an email to the cleaner with a list of additional cleaning items. There is little overlap between the photographs and the email.
The landlord has the onus of establishing that additional cleaning was required after the cleaner had completed her cleaning for the tenant. Having reviewed the photographs and contemporaneous emails, I find that some extra cleaning was required, but not to the extent claimed. I award $75.00 for cleaning.

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 claims that the living room ceiling was damaged during the tenancy. It claims $776.25 for repairs that have not been carried out. There is some evidence of paint chips or scuffs on the ceiling, shown on close up photographs, at the end of the tenancy. The marks are not evident in in-going photographs or routine inspection photographs taken at a usual distance during the tenancy. There is no evidence of the tenant having stuck or blu-taked anything to the living room ceiling during the tenancy.
The landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that the tenant has caused damage to the living room ceiling that is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that it has suffered the loss claimed.
The claim for painting is dismissed.
As each party was partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496290 — Cleanliness at 18 Ranger Street, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496290 — Cleanliness at 18 Ranger Street, Mairehau, Christchurch 8052

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions