What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4629069?

The tribunal order states: Stephanie Fox must pay Barry Donoghue $34.41 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4629069?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Credit: $16.53 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4468680 D…: $560.44 awarded to tenant; Storage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $62.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4629069?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4629069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9708907-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4629069?

The tribunal order states: Stephanie Fox must pay Barry Donoghue $34.41 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4629069?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Credit: $16.53 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4468680 D…: $560.44 awarded to tenant; Storage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $62.12 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4629069?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4629069?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9708907-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 1, 221 Maunu Road, Horahora, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4629069 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4629069 — net $34.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$62.12		Water rates
Cleaning	$270.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$90.00		Carpet Cleaning
Storage	$100.00		Storage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		39. The landlord has been partially successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
Previous order application 4468680 dated 12/06/2023		$560.44	Previous order application 4468680 dated 12/06/2023
Credit		$16.53	Credit
Total award	$542.56	$576.97
Net award		$34.41
Bond		$1,520.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$34.41

Order

Stephanie Fox must pay Barry Donoghue $34.41 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (6383748-003) to Barry Donoghue immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 30 April 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, water rates, cleaning, carpet cleaning, storage, and change of locks costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 17 November 2023. Ms Ryburn and Ms Clarijs represented the landlord. Mr Donoghue attended the hearing by phone, with the consent of the Tribunal. Rent arrears
Eves Whangarei were the property managers when this tenancy began in September 2020.
The owner then took over management herself. Eves Whangarei became involved again at the beginning of April 2023, the final month of the tenancy.
Ms Clarijs provided a rent record for the period from 1 April 2023 to 30 April 2023.
The record shows that Mr Donoghue made two payments totalling $1,290.00 in April. The total rent owed for that period (four weeks and two days at $430.00 per week) was $1,842.86, leaving rent arrears of $552.86.
Mr Donoghue submitted that the true position with regards to rent arrears for the tenancy cannot be known without a complete rent record, covering the full period of the tenancy. Mr Donoghue submitted that he has been in credit at times during the tenancy and he is not confident that all of his rent payments have been property taken into account.
I agree with Mr Donoghue’s argument. The claim for rent arrears is not proven without a complete rent record.
The claim is dismissed. Water rates
The claim seeks water rates totalling $112.11 comprised of the Whangarei District Council invoice for the period from 5 October 2022 to 17 March 2023 ($99.99), and water use from 18 March to the end of the tenancy final meter read ($12.12).
Mr Donoghue submitted that there was a pipe leak at the property near the meter. Mr Donoghue could not recall when the leak happened. The landlord’s partner Mr Bland gave evidence at the hearing. Mr Bland confirmed that the leak occurred. Mr Bland also could not recall when it happened.
The amount of the October 2022 – March 2023 invoice when compared with Mr Donoghue’s previous six-monthly water invoices suggests that the leak occurred during that October 2022 – March 2023 period.
Mr Donoghue’s previous invoices were $27.84 (for the period September 2021 – March 2022) and $47.44 (for the period March 2022 – October 2022).
Tenants are not required to pay for water that is lost through a leak 1 .
It is impossible to assess the amount of water lost in the leak. Based on Mr Donoghue’s previous water bills, my finding is that $50.00 is a reasonable assessment of his actual use during the September 2022 – March 2023.
Mr Donoghue is liable for $50.00 for that period plus $12.12 for the final period, a total of $62.12 Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 2 .
Ms Clarijs provided copies of photographs that were taken at the end of the tenancy.
Mr Donoghue noted that the quality of some of the printed photographs was poor, which is a reasonable criticism.
However, the photographs are sufficient to show that the premises were substantially below the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard at the end of the tenancy.
The claim for $270.00 for cleaning is reasonable and conservative.
Mr Donoghue objected to the carpet cleaning claim on the grounds that he was being held responsible for a stain on the carpet that was caused by a hot water cylinder leak.
I accept that point. However, the photographs also show that the carpets were generally untidy and dirty.
I will hold Mr Donoghue liable for half of the carpet cleaning cost claimed by the landlord. Storage of goods
Tenants must remove all of their belongings at the end of the tenancy. If they fail to, the landlord must store the tenant’s goods and make all reasonable 1 Section 39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA efforts to contact the tenant and agree with the tenant a timeframe for the tenant to collect the goods 3 .
If the landlord stores the tenant’s goods after the end of the tenancy, the landlord is entitled to recover “actual and reasonable” storage costs from the tenant 4 .
In this instance: a. Mr Donoghue had an arrangement with Mr Bland to dispose of rubbish. b. Mr Donoghue left personal belongings behind that were not rubbish.
Mr Donoghue submitted that Ms Fox and Mr Bland did not respond to his requests retrieve what was left behind.
The relationship between Mr Donoghue and Ms Fox was very strained. Mr Bland also acknowledged that he became frustrated when Mr Donoghue did not agree to the deductions that they wanted to make from the bond.
Mr Donoghue submitted that he was not given enough time to remove all of his belongings.
I will award one-third of the storage costs claimed by the landlord having regard to the following principles. a. Tenants must remove all of their belongings at the end of the tenancy. The tenancy was lawfully terminated. Mr Donoghue’s argument that he did not have enough time does not excuse him of his legal duty. b. Mr Donoghue’s efforts to retrieve his belongings (such as they were) were frustrated at least to some extent by the landlord. c. This is not a third-party storage cost that the landlord has incurred, it is essentially compensation to the landlord for inconvenience. It is not the case that the landlord was prevented from re-letting the premises due to the belongings – the tenancy was terminated on the grounds that the landlord’s daughter was moving in to the unit.
At the date of the hearing, the landlord was still in possession of some of Mr Donoghue’s belongings. Mr Donoghue has the right to retrieve those belongings and the landlord must take reasonable steps to facilitate that. Change of locks
The claim seeks change of locks on the garage. 3 Section 62(3) RTA 4 Section 62A(4)(a) RTA
Mr Donoghue submitted that the garage was locked using the same key as the back door. Mr Donoghue submitted that he returned all of the keys that he had.
It is not proven that Mr Donoghue was given a separate key for the garage.
It is not proven that Mr Donoghue failed to return all of the keys that he was given at the start of the tenancy.
This part of the claim must be dismissed. Filing fee, bond, outcome
The landlord has been partially successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
Mr Donoghue was awarded $560.44 in a previous order. That debt has not been paid.
I have brought forward that amount into this order. I have also included a credit of $16.53 that was accepted by the landlord but not incorporated into the previous order 5 .
The net result is that Ms Fox is to pay Ms Donoghue $34.41.
The bond will be released to Mr Donoghue.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4629069 — net $34.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$62.12		Water rates
Cleaning	$270.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$90.00		Carpet Cleaning
Storage	$100.00		Storage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		39. The landlord has been partially successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
Previous order application 4468680 dated 12/06/2023		$560.44	Previous order application 4468680 dated 12/06/2023
Credit		$16.53	Credit
Total award	$542.56	$576.97
Net award		$34.41
Bond		$1,520.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$34.41

Order

Stephanie Fox must pay Barry Donoghue $34.41 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (6383748-003) to Barry Donoghue immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 30 April 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, water rates, cleaning, carpet cleaning, storage, and change of locks costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 17 November 2023. Ms Ryburn and Ms Clarijs represented the landlord. Mr Donoghue attended the hearing by phone, with the consent of the Tribunal. Rent arrears
Eves Whangarei were the property managers when this tenancy began in September 2020.
The owner then took over management herself. Eves Whangarei became involved again at the beginning of April 2023, the final month of the tenancy.
Ms Clarijs provided a rent record for the period from 1 April 2023 to 30 April 2023.
The record shows that Mr Donoghue made two payments totalling $1,290.00 in April. The total rent owed for that period (four weeks and two days at $430.00 per week) was $1,842.86, leaving rent arrears of $552.86.
Mr Donoghue submitted that the true position with regards to rent arrears for the tenancy cannot be known without a complete rent record, covering the full period of the tenancy. Mr Donoghue submitted that he has been in credit at times during the tenancy and he is not confident that all of his rent payments have been property taken into account.
I agree with Mr Donoghue’s argument. The claim for rent arrears is not proven without a complete rent record.
The claim is dismissed. Water rates
The claim seeks water rates totalling $112.11 comprised of the Whangarei District Council invoice for the period from 5 October 2022 to 17 March 2023 ($99.99), and water use from 18 March to the end of the tenancy final meter read ($12.12).
Mr Donoghue submitted that there was a pipe leak at the property near the meter. Mr Donoghue could not recall when the leak happened. The landlord’s partner Mr Bland gave evidence at the hearing. Mr Bland confirmed that the leak occurred. Mr Bland also could not recall when it happened.
The amount of the October 2022 – March 2023 invoice when compared with Mr Donoghue’s previous six-monthly water invoices suggests that the leak occurred during that October 2022 – March 2023 period.
Mr Donoghue’s previous invoices were $27.84 (for the period September 2021 – March 2022) and $47.44 (for the period March 2022 – October 2022).
Tenants are not required to pay for water that is lost through a leak 1 .
It is impossible to assess the amount of water lost in the leak. Based on Mr Donoghue’s previous water bills, my finding is that $50.00 is a reasonable assessment of his actual use during the September 2022 – March 2023.
Mr Donoghue is liable for $50.00 for that period plus $12.12 for the final period, a total of $62.12 Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 2 .
Ms Clarijs provided copies of photographs that were taken at the end of the tenancy.
Mr Donoghue noted that the quality of some of the printed photographs was poor, which is a reasonable criticism.
However, the photographs are sufficient to show that the premises were substantially below the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard at the end of the tenancy.
The claim for $270.00 for cleaning is reasonable and conservative.
Mr Donoghue objected to the carpet cleaning claim on the grounds that he was being held responsible for a stain on the carpet that was caused by a hot water cylinder leak.
I accept that point. However, the photographs also show that the carpets were generally untidy and dirty.
I will hold Mr Donoghue liable for half of the carpet cleaning cost claimed by the landlord. Storage of goods
Tenants must remove all of their belongings at the end of the tenancy. If they fail to, the landlord must store the tenant’s goods and make all reasonable 1 Section 39(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA efforts to contact the tenant and agree with the tenant a timeframe for the tenant to collect the goods 3 .
If the landlord stores the tenant’s goods after the end of the tenancy, the landlord is entitled to recover “actual and reasonable” storage costs from the tenant 4 .
In this instance: a. Mr Donoghue had an arrangement with Mr Bland to dispose of rubbish. b. Mr Donoghue left personal belongings behind that were not rubbish.
Mr Donoghue submitted that Ms Fox and Mr Bland did not respond to his requests retrieve what was left behind.
The relationship between Mr Donoghue and Ms Fox was very strained. Mr Bland also acknowledged that he became frustrated when Mr Donoghue did not agree to the deductions that they wanted to make from the bond.
Mr Donoghue submitted that he was not given enough time to remove all of his belongings.
I will award one-third of the storage costs claimed by the landlord having regard to the following principles. a. Tenants must remove all of their belongings at the end of the tenancy. The tenancy was lawfully terminated. Mr Donoghue’s argument that he did not have enough time does not excuse him of his legal duty. b. Mr Donoghue’s efforts to retrieve his belongings (such as they were) were frustrated at least to some extent by the landlord. c. This is not a third-party storage cost that the landlord has incurred, it is essentially compensation to the landlord for inconvenience. It is not the case that the landlord was prevented from re-letting the premises due to the belongings – the tenancy was terminated on the grounds that the landlord’s daughter was moving in to the unit.
At the date of the hearing, the landlord was still in possession of some of Mr Donoghue’s belongings. Mr Donoghue has the right to retrieve those belongings and the landlord must take reasonable steps to facilitate that. Change of locks
The claim seeks change of locks on the garage. 3 Section 62(3) RTA 4 Section 62A(4)(a) RTA
Mr Donoghue submitted that the garage was locked using the same key as the back door. Mr Donoghue submitted that he returned all of the keys that he had.
It is not proven that Mr Donoghue was given a separate key for the garage.
It is not proven that Mr Donoghue failed to return all of the keys that he was given at the start of the tenancy.
This part of the claim must be dismissed. Filing fee, bond, outcome
The landlord has been partially successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
Mr Donoghue was awarded $560.44 in a previous order. That debt has not been paid.
I have brought forward that amount into this order. I have also included a credit of $16.53 that was accepted by the landlord but not incorporated into the previous order 5 .
The net result is that Ms Fox is to pay Ms Donoghue $34.41.
The bond will be released to Mr Donoghue.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4629069 — Cleanliness at Flat 1, 221 Maunu Road, Horahora, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4629069 — Cleanliness at Flat 1, 221 Maunu Road, Horahora, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions