How much money was awarded in case 4620753?

D With In Full By The Appointed Time…: $188.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4620753?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4620753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9433345-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4620753?

D With In Full By The Appointed Time…: $188.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4620753?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4620753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9433345-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5F, 69 McKenzie Road, Mangere Bridge 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4620753 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4620753?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4620753. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
d with in full by the appointed time, Lalita Singh is ordered to pay Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership	$188.00		d with in full by the appointed time, Lalita Singh is ordered to pay Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Lalita Singh is to return the benchtop stove that was wrongly taken from her flat by her movers, to Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership, 8 Lakewood Court, Manukau by 5.00pm on Friday 22 September 2023.

If Order 2 is not complied with in full by the appointed time, Lalita Singh is ordered to pay Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership $188.00 immediately.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1056.56 (6164531-006) to Lalita Singh immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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 has claimed $103.50 for cleaning costs. The photos provided do show some dust and dirt. My view is that overall the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. Added to this, the landlord has not provided the Tribunal with an invoice for the cleaning. The claim for cleaning is not proved and is dismissed accordingly.

The landlord claimed that at the end of the tenancy the tenant Ms Singh, took with her a benchtop stove valued at $188.00, and a microwave oven valued at $65.00.

Ms Singh claimed that when she moved in there was no microwave and she had to buy one for herself. Ms Singh said that she bought the microwave from the Warehouse and the microwave that the landlord is claiming compensation for, is the one that she bought herself.

The landlord has not provided Entry-Inspection photos nor an Entry-Inspection report. The landlord has not been able to establish that the microwave evident in photographs taken during the tenancy, was provided to Ms Singh by the landlord and was therefore the landlord’s property. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for the microwave is not made out and is dismissed.

Ms Singh accepted that when she moved out, her movers took the benchtop stove belonging to Investment Portfolio Partnership with them as they believed it belonged to Ms Singh. Ms Singh stated that the benchtop stove is in a box in storage, and she will be happy to return it to Investment Portfolio Partnership.

The landlord, accepted this remedy. The claim for the benchtop stove is resolved accordingly.

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.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpet has stains around the fridge area, around the entrance way (several small spots), and in the lounge area (one long, moderately light stain).

There was much discussion around the circumstances of the staining. Ms Singh claimed that the stains are the result of a burglary by neighbouring tenants two years ago. Following the break in she says, police attended and spoke with the neighbours. There was no damage as a result of the claimed “break-in”.

The landlord says that Ms Singh gave the neighbours her key when she went away so they could keep an eye on the property and she says the police report states as much. The landlord therefore asserts that the damage was caused by people on the premises with Ms Singh’s consent.

No police report was presented by either party.

Photos taken during the tenancy show the staining.

I am not convinced, in spite of Ms Singh’s information, that there was a break-in two years ago, or that the stains were caused by the people in her apartment during her absence two years ago. One of the reasons for this is that the staining to the carpet near the fridge, looks consistent with staining that commonly appears around fridges over an extended period of time.

Whether or not the carpet was stained by visitors on the premises with or without Ms Singh’s consent, overall the staining is not excessive and is somewhat consistent with wear and tear over a six-year tenancy.

I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Both parties agree the carpet was one year old when the tenancy began in July 2017. That makes the carpet almost seven years old at the end of the tenancy. The Inland Revenue Department Schedule of Depreciation gives a nylon carpet in a rental property an eight-year life span. Depreciated at the allocated rate of 13% per year, that brings the value of the carpet down to approximately $60.00 at the end of the tenancy.

In the circumstances I do not find the claim that the damage to the carpet is more than fair wear and tear, and I dismiss the claim, which could not exceed $60.00 in any case, accordingly.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4620753. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
d with in full by the appointed time, Lalita Singh is ordered to pay Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership	$188.00		d with in full by the appointed time, Lalita Singh is ordered to pay Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

If Order 2 is not complied with in full by the appointed time, Lalita Singh is ordered to pay Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership $188.00 immediately.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1056.56 (6164531-006) to Lalita Singh immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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?

The landlord claimed that at the end of the tenancy the tenant Ms Singh, took with her a benchtop stove valued at $188.00, and a microwave oven valued at $65.00.

The landlord, accepted this remedy. The claim for the benchtop stove is resolved accordingly.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

No police report was presented by either party.

Photos taken during the tenancy show the staining.

In the circumstances I do not find the claim that the damage to the carpet is more than fair wear and tear, and I dismiss the claim, which could not exceed $60.00 in any case, accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4620753 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 5F, 69 McKenzie Road, Mangere Bridge 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4620753 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 5F, 69 McKenzie Road, Mangere Bridge 2022

At a glance

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

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