What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4509092?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4509092?

Ranil Uddika Bandara Wimalasooriya P…: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4509092?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4509092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9289393-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4509092?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4509092?

Ranil Uddika Bandara Wimalasooriya P…: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4509092?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4509092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9289393-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

94A Archers Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4509092 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4509092. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Ranil Uddika Bandara Wimalasooriya Palkade Watte Gedara to pay Anemax Property Management Limited As Agent For Bot Holdi	$150.00		Ranil Uddika Bandara Wimalasooriya Palkade Watte Gedara to pay Anemax Property Management Limited As Agent For Bot Holdi

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Rosanjela Dias and Ranil Uddika Bandara Wimalasooriya Palkade Watte Gedara to pay Anemax Property Management Limited As Agent For Bot Holdings Limited, $150.00 for compensation for the laundry shelf.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider claims filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has ended, but there are disputes in relation to the premises for which the parties seek compensation for.
The Tenancy commenced on 16 September 2022 as a fixed term tenancy until 16 September 2022.
A hearing was convened at the Tenancy Tribunal sitting in the North Shore District Court, on 14 August 2023. I note that an interpreter was in attendance to support Ms Dias, but not required.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

The landlord has claimed compensation for damage to two shelves and cleaning. Laundry shelf
The landlord’s position is that there was a shelf in the laundry at the start of the tenancy, but missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant states that the shelf was not mentioned at the time the time of the post tenancy inspection, and the tenant’s position is that the shelf was there when they left the premises.
The landlord disputes that the shelf was there at the end of the tenancy. The landlord refers to the photograph taken on 30 January 2023.
The photographs provided by the landlord support that a shelf was in place above the laundry tub. The tenants agree there was a shelf in this location. But where the parties disagree, is whether this shelf was returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says it was missing, but the tenants say it was returned.
On balance, I consider the photographs produced by the landlord, which were taken at the end of the tenancy, supports that the shelf was missing when the premises were returned.
At the end of the tenancy the tenants needed to return to the landlord all chattels, whether these were raised at the post tenancy inspection. I find the shelf was not returned, so the tenants are liable for the replacement cost. I award costs of $150.00 for the replacement of this item. Wardrobe shelf
The landlord states that there was a shelf in the wardrobe that was in place at the start of the tenancy, but broken at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes that the shelf was broken at the end of the tenancy, and say it was intact.
The landlord states that they tell the tenants at the time of the final inspection that they would take photograph that would then be compared with the pre- tenancy inspection photographs.
In relation to the shelf, it was said by the landlord that the timber was broken.
In this case the shelf was returned, but it was no longer affixed to the sides of the shelving unit.
Landlords are responsible for maintenance to the premises. Tenants are only responsible for damage caused carelessly or intentionally. On balance I must conclude that there is insufficient evidence to show the damage to the shelf was careless or intentional damage. I consider this more likely fall into the category of being a maintenance issue. This claim is dismissed. Cleaning
The landlord has claimed $200 for cleaning the premises. The landlord notes that during the course of the tenancy they had the premises cleaned. The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy, further cleaning was necessary.
The tenants state that when the tenancy commenced, there was minimum cleaning that had been done. The tenants consider that the premises were kept clean during the tenancy. The tenants say they did two days of cleaning.
The landlord states that when the tenants were not happy with the state of the premises during the tenancy, the landlord arranged a commercial cleaner to clean the premises.
The obligation on the tenant is to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. I have considered the photographs provided by the parties, but I am not persuaded that those photographs show premises that depart from a reasonable standard of cleanliness. The photographs to show some areas which are less than perfect, but the standard that a tenant needs to return the premises is not of an immaculate level, or a hotel standard, it is only reasonably clean and tidy. I am satisfied that the premises were returned reasonably clean and tidy, therefore this claim must be dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIM
The tenants seek an order that the landlord reimburse 15 weeks of rental. The tenants say the condition of the carpets was in such bad condition, it was not liveable. The tenant says that they had asked the landlord on multiple times to replace the carpet, but the landlord would not do that for financial reasons. The tenant considers that there was a risk to their toddler who was picking pieces of carpet up. The tenant states the landlord had told them the carpet was stained, but at the time of the viewing of the premises, the wear was not seen by them.
The landlord states that the tenant was aware of the state of the carpet when the tenancy was rented, and therefore the tenants had agreed to the condition of the carpet when the premises were rented. The landlord says that the tenants said that unless the landlord replace all carpet in the house, they would end the tenancy. However the landlord offered to fix or replace the carpet. However the landlord advised there was no budget to replace the carpet.
In conclusion, the tenants state that carpet was rotten. The tenants note that the landlord had agreed to convert the tenancy to a periodic tenancy. The tenants consider the dwelling was not habitable.
There is no legal requirement in New Zealand that a residential tenancy dwelling have carpet. In this case, the premises did have carpet in the lounge, and I accept without hesitation that the carpet is in very poor condition, it is worn out, and it requires replacement.
I am minded however, that the state that the carpet at the end of the tenancy, would not be a consequence of further deterioration over the course of the tenancy. To that extent it is not a maintenance issue that has arisen during the tenancy, for these tenants.
I can see however, that the tenants raised the issue of the carpet with the landlord in October 2022, and then in November 2022 the landlord had offered to get somebody to fix the carpet, but raised with the tenant that the colour would look different to the rest of the house, and asking if the tenants would like to proceed with it. Alternatively the landlord advised that the tenants could provide 28 days notice to end the tenancy. The tenants declined to take the landlords offer up of repairing the carpet, instead gave notice terminating the tenancy.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the carpet presents in a realistic health risk. Certainly it is worn and threadbare, but I am not persuaded that it presents a health impact, that would make the premises uninhabitable, as the tenants propose.
The tenants claim must be dismissed for three reasons. Firstly, the landlord was not under any obligation to provide carpet to the tenants, secondly the carpet would have been as it was when the premises were first inspected before the tenancy agreement was entered into, and thirdly I accept that the landlord had offered to fix the carpet, which the tenants declined to accept. This claim must accordingly be dismissed.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Both parties have requested name suppression. However, because neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in their applications, then name suppression has declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4509092. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Ranil Uddika Bandara Wimalasooriya Palkade Watte Gedara to pay Anemax Property Management Limited As Agent For Bot Holdi	$150.00		Ranil Uddika Bandara Wimalasooriya Palkade Watte Gedara to pay Anemax Property Management Limited As Agent For Bot Holdi

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Rosanjela Dias and Ranil Uddika Bandara Wimalasooriya Palkade Watte Gedara to pay Anemax Property Management Limited As Agent For Bot Holdings Limited, $150.00 for compensation for the laundry shelf.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider claims filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has ended, but there are disputes in relation to the premises for which the parties seek compensation for.
The Tenancy commenced on 16 September 2022 as a fixed term tenancy until 16 September 2022.
A hearing was convened at the Tenancy Tribunal sitting in the North Shore District Court, on 14 August 2023. I note that an interpreter was in attendance to support Ms Dias, but not required.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

The landlord has claimed compensation for damage to two shelves and cleaning. Laundry shelf
The landlord’s position is that there was a shelf in the laundry at the start of the tenancy, but missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant states that the shelf was not mentioned at the time the time of the post tenancy inspection, and the tenant’s position is that the shelf was there when they left the premises.
The landlord disputes that the shelf was there at the end of the tenancy. The landlord refers to the photograph taken on 30 January 2023.
The photographs provided by the landlord support that a shelf was in place above the laundry tub. The tenants agree there was a shelf in this location. But where the parties disagree, is whether this shelf was returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says it was missing, but the tenants say it was returned.
On balance, I consider the photographs produced by the landlord, which were taken at the end of the tenancy, supports that the shelf was missing when the premises were returned.
At the end of the tenancy the tenants needed to return to the landlord all chattels, whether these were raised at the post tenancy inspection. I find the shelf was not returned, so the tenants are liable for the replacement cost. I award costs of $150.00 for the replacement of this item. Wardrobe shelf
The landlord states that there was a shelf in the wardrobe that was in place at the start of the tenancy, but broken at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes that the shelf was broken at the end of the tenancy, and say it was intact.
The landlord states that they tell the tenants at the time of the final inspection that they would take photograph that would then be compared with the pre- tenancy inspection photographs.
In relation to the shelf, it was said by the landlord that the timber was broken.
In this case the shelf was returned, but it was no longer affixed to the sides of the shelving unit.
Landlords are responsible for maintenance to the premises. Tenants are only responsible for damage caused carelessly or intentionally. On balance I must conclude that there is insufficient evidence to show the damage to the shelf was careless or intentional damage. I consider this more likely fall into the category of being a maintenance issue. This claim is dismissed. Cleaning
The landlord has claimed $200 for cleaning the premises. The landlord notes that during the course of the tenancy they had the premises cleaned. The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy, further cleaning was necessary.
The tenants state that when the tenancy commenced, there was minimum cleaning that had been done. The tenants consider that the premises were kept clean during the tenancy. The tenants say they did two days of cleaning.
The landlord states that when the tenants were not happy with the state of the premises during the tenancy, the landlord arranged a commercial cleaner to clean the premises.
The obligation on the tenant is to return the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. I have considered the photographs provided by the parties, but I am not persuaded that those photographs show premises that depart from a reasonable standard of cleanliness. The photographs to show some areas which are less than perfect, but the standard that a tenant needs to return the premises is not of an immaculate level, or a hotel standard, it is only reasonably clean and tidy. I am satisfied that the premises were returned reasonably clean and tidy, therefore this claim must be dismissed. TENANT’S CLAIM
The tenants seek an order that the landlord reimburse 15 weeks of rental. The tenants say the condition of the carpets was in such bad condition, it was not liveable. The tenant says that they had asked the landlord on multiple times to replace the carpet, but the landlord would not do that for financial reasons. The tenant considers that there was a risk to their toddler who was picking pieces of carpet up. The tenant states the landlord had told them the carpet was stained, but at the time of the viewing of the premises, the wear was not seen by them.
The landlord states that the tenant was aware of the state of the carpet when the tenancy was rented, and therefore the tenants had agreed to the condition of the carpet when the premises were rented. The landlord says that the tenants said that unless the landlord replace all carpet in the house, they would end the tenancy. However the landlord offered to fix or replace the carpet. However the landlord advised there was no budget to replace the carpet.
In conclusion, the tenants state that carpet was rotten. The tenants note that the landlord had agreed to convert the tenancy to a periodic tenancy. The tenants consider the dwelling was not habitable.
There is no legal requirement in New Zealand that a residential tenancy dwelling have carpet. In this case, the premises did have carpet in the lounge, and I accept without hesitation that the carpet is in very poor condition, it is worn out, and it requires replacement.
I am minded however, that the state that the carpet at the end of the tenancy, would not be a consequence of further deterioration over the course of the tenancy. To that extent it is not a maintenance issue that has arisen during the tenancy, for these tenants.
I can see however, that the tenants raised the issue of the carpet with the landlord in October 2022, and then in November 2022 the landlord had offered to get somebody to fix the carpet, but raised with the tenant that the colour would look different to the rest of the house, and asking if the tenants would like to proceed with it. Alternatively the landlord advised that the tenants could provide 28 days notice to end the tenancy. The tenants declined to take the landlords offer up of repairing the carpet, instead gave notice terminating the tenancy.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the carpet presents in a realistic health risk. Certainly it is worn and threadbare, but I am not persuaded that it presents a health impact, that would make the premises uninhabitable, as the tenants propose.
The tenants claim must be dismissed for three reasons. Firstly, the landlord was not under any obligation to provide carpet to the tenants, secondly the carpet would have been as it was when the premises were first inspected before the tenancy agreement was entered into, and thirdly I accept that the landlord had offered to fix the carpet, which the tenants declined to accept. This claim must accordingly be dismissed.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Both parties have requested name suppression. However, because neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in their applications, then name suppression has declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4509092 — Cleanliness at 94A Archers Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4509092 — Cleanliness at 94A Archers Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions