What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4639291?

The tribunal order states: Florence Maruaao Rio to pay Sunshine Property Group Limited $1,219.42

How much money was awarded in case 4639291?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,198.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639291?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10454429-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4639291?

The tribunal order states: Florence Maruaao Rio to pay Sunshine Property Group Limited $1,219.42

How much money was awarded in case 4639291?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,198.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639291?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10454429-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Greenstone Place, Clover Park, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4639291 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639291. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning, rubbish removal, carpet clean, pest control	$1,198.98		Cleaning, rubbish removal, carpet clean, pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 provided an invoice for $1,119.98 from Shiny Service Limited which include amounts for cleaning, carpet cleaning, cockroach treatment and rubbish removal.

These costs were accepted by the tenant, but the tenant stated she thought these costs had already been paid when she signed over the bond to the landlord at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant produced a text conversation on her mobile telephone which included the landlord discussing with the tenant his opinion that she needed to sign over the bond to pay for cleaning and damage. The text conversation also includes the landlord stating his intention to make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for similar costs. The landlord does not say that the bond fully settles the costs for damage and cleaning.

Although there is no record of what expenses were covered by the landlord claiming the bond, there is no information before the Tribunal that seeks to limit the landlord from also bringing this application.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 $1000.00 for the carpet. The landlord claims that the carpets in the three bedrooms were damaged with colouring, and smelled of animal urine. At the hearing the landlord provided photographs of the carpet in one of the bedrooms, which is stained. The staining was accepted by the tenant.

The landlord produced a handwritten receipt, with no letterhead, no GST number and no date. The property address is written on the receipt. In the “GST” line “$1000.00” is written, and in the “Total” line an indecipherable amount is written.

The tenant categorically denied having pets at the property and stated that before she vacated the property she had the carpet steam cleaned and then advised the landlord that despite the carpets not being fully dry, she was locking the premises and returning the keys. She believes the drying carpet may have been the smell of urine the landlord was referring to.

The tenant accepts that she caused damage to the carpet in one of the bedrooms, but denies damaging the carpet in the other bedrooms. The tenant stated that when she moved in the landlord pointed out that one of the bedrooms had newer carpet, and the other two bedrooms had older carpet. At the hearing, the landlord accepted this was the case. The landlord was not sure how old each of the carpets was.

The landlord has not provided sufficient information to substantiate their claim that new carpet was laid, and if it was, where it was laid or how much it cost. There is no information about how old the carpet was and therefore what its residual value was, nor how much of the carpet was damaged to the point of needing replacing.

The “receipt” provides no reliable information on the issue and no opportunity to verify its reliability. The claim for carpet laying is not proved.

Because Sunshine Property Group Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639291. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning, rubbish removal, carpet clean, pest control	$1,198.98		Cleaning, rubbish removal, carpet clean, pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Florence Maruaao Rio to pay Sunshine Property Group Limited $1,219.42 calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 provided an invoice for $1,119.98 from Shiny Service Limited which include amounts for cleaning, carpet cleaning, cockroach treatment and rubbish removal.
These costs were accepted by the tenant, but the tenant stated she thought these costs had already been paid when she signed over the bond to the landlord at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant produced a text conversation on her mobile telephone which included the landlord discussing with the tenant his opinion that she needed to sign over the bond to pay for cleaning and damage. The text conversation also includes the landlord stating his intention to make an application to the Tenancy Tribunal for similar costs. The landlord does not say that the bond fully settles the costs for damage and cleaning.
Although there is no record of what expenses were covered by the landlord claiming the bond, there is no information before the Tribunal that seeks to limit the landlord from also bringing this application.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 $1000.00 for the carpet. The landlord claims that the carpets in the three bedrooms were damaged with colouring, and smelled of animal urine. At the hearing the landlord provided photographs of the carpet in one of the bedrooms, which is stained. The staining was accepted by the tenant.
The landlord produced a handwritten receipt, with no letterhead, no GST number and no date. The property address is written on the receipt. In the “GST” line “$1000.00” is written, and in the “Total” line an indecipherable amount is written.
The tenant categorically denied having pets at the property and stated that before she vacated the property she had the carpet steam cleaned and then advised the landlord that despite the carpets not being fully dry, she was locking the premises and returning the keys. She believes the drying carpet may have been the smell of urine the landlord was referring to.
The tenant accepts that she caused damage to the carpet in one of the bedrooms, but denies damaging the carpet in the other bedrooms. The tenant stated that when she moved in the landlord pointed out that one of the bedrooms had newer carpet, and the other two bedrooms had older carpet. At the hearing, the landlord accepted this was the case. The landlord was not sure how old each of the carpets was.
The landlord has not provided sufficient information to substantiate their claim that new carpet was laid, and if it was, where it was laid or how much it cost. There is no information about how old the carpet was and therefore what its residual value was, nor how much of the carpet was damaged to the point of needing replacing.
The “receipt” provides no reliable information on the issue and no opportunity to verify its reliability. The claim for carpet laying is not proved.
Because Sunshine Property Group Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639291 — Cleanliness at 9 Greenstone Place, Clover Park, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639291 — Cleanliness at 9 Greenstone Place, Clover Park, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

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

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