How much money was awarded in case 4639489?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639489?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9532307-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4639489?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639489?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9532307-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

180 Idris Road, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4639489 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4639489?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639489 — net $310.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of cleaning cost deducted from bond	$290.00	Refund of cleaning cost deducted from bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$310.44
Bond	$305.36
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$310.44

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

Braziers Limited as Agent for Darren Staats must pay Steven James Hartwell and Justine Maree Knight $310.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $305.36 () to Steven James Hartwell and Justine Maree Knight immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearings on 14 September 2023 and 12 October 2023.

On 26 July 2023 the tenants applied for refund of the bond of $1,340.00. Some of the bond was paid to the landlord and $305.36 remains at the bond centre.

The landlord says $607.14 was taken from the bond for rent arrears at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says the last payment of rent was received on 8 February 2023.

The landlord’s claim for rent is supported by rent records which show the last payment of rent by the tenants was made on 8 February 2023. The evidence provided by the tenants does not show any payments later than this. I find on the balance of probabilities that rent of $607.14 was owed at the end of the tenancy on 27 February 2023.

The tenants were critical of the way the landlord behaved at the end of the tenancy. The property manager, who no longer works for the landlord, was said to have pre-determined the outcome of the final inspection. The tenants provided screenshots of payments made as evidence that they arranged for cleaning and carpet cleaning on 26 February 2023.

The landlord has agreed to refund $290.00 which was deducted from the bond for cleaning. A further $137.50 was deducted for carpet cleaning. The payment records provided by the tenants indicate that the bedroom carpets were cleaned. There is a text message from the owner dated 6 March 2023, with a photograph of the carpet and a bucket of dirty water. The text message states: “Smells wrong. He said it was very dirty”. The landlord provided a carpet cleaning invoice also dated 6 March 2023.

The tenants had an obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. I accept that they took steps to achieve this. The evidence, however, shows on the balance of probabilities that the carpet was still dirty after the initial clean. I find that the landlord was entitled to deduct $137.50 from the bond for carpet cleaning. Other issues

Other matters were raised by the tenants: • The property manager had predetermined the state of the house and had already organised a cleaning team to enter the property; • There were pictures of their personal property taken by the landlord in breach of their privacy; • They were not informed of items inside the house and had no way of retrieving them because the property manager took the keys to the property; • The landlord made a claim against the bond without notifying them.

These issues were not formally part of the tenants’ application, and so no findings have been made. However, as the points were raised, I make the following brief observations: • The first point has already been addressed, so far as it is relevant to the application for refund of the bond. • The photographs from the final inspection do not appear to show any personal items of a sensitive nature. • The tenants may wish to write to the landlord about what happened to their belongings. • The landlord may have been entitled to make a claim against the bond without the tenants’ agreement, pursuant to section 22A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The available evidence does not indicate that the landlord has taken advantage of this provision in some way. Filing fee

The tenants have succeeded in recovering part of the bond. Moreover, an application to the Tribunal was necessary to obtain a refund. I award the tenants the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639489 — net $310.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Refund of cleaning cost deducted from bond	$290.00	Refund of cleaning cost deducted from bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$310.44
Bond	$305.36
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$310.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Braziers Limited as Agent for Darren Staats must pay Steven James Hartwell and Justine Maree Knight $310.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $305.36 () to Steven James Hartwell and Justine Maree Knight immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearings on 14 September 2023 and 12 October 2023.
On 26 July 2023 the tenants applied for refund of the bond of $1,340.00. Some of the bond was paid to the landlord and $305.36 remains at the bond centre.
The landlord says $607.14 was taken from the bond for rent arrears at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says the last payment of rent was received on 8 February 2023.
The landlord’s claim for rent is supported by rent records which show the last payment of rent by the tenants was made on 8 February 2023. The evidence provided by the tenants does not show any payments later than this. I find on the balance of probabilities that rent of $607.14 was owed at the end of the tenancy on 27 February 2023.
The tenants were critical of the way the landlord behaved at the end of the tenancy. The property manager, who no longer works for the landlord, was said to have pre-determined the outcome of the final inspection. The tenants provided screenshots of payments made as evidence that they arranged for cleaning and carpet cleaning on 26 February 2023.
The landlord has agreed to refund $290.00 which was deducted from the bond for cleaning. A further $137.50 was deducted for carpet cleaning. The payment records provided by the tenants indicate that the bedroom carpets were cleaned. There is a text message from the owner dated 6 March 2023, with a photograph of the carpet and a bucket of dirty water. The text message states: “Smells wrong. He said it was very dirty”. The landlord provided a carpet cleaning invoice also dated 6 March 2023.
The tenants had an obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. I accept that they took steps to achieve this. The evidence, however, shows on the balance of probabilities that the carpet was still dirty after the initial clean. I find that the landlord was entitled to deduct $137.50 from the bond for carpet cleaning. Other issues
Other matters were raised by the tenants: • The property manager had predetermined the state of the house and had already organised a cleaning team to enter the property; • There were pictures of their personal property taken by the landlord in breach of their privacy; • They were not informed of items inside the house and had no way of retrieving them because the property manager took the keys to the property; • The landlord made a claim against the bond without notifying them.
These issues were not formally part of the tenants’ application, and so no findings have been made. However, as the points were raised, I make the following brief observations: • The first point has already been addressed, so far as it is relevant to the application for refund of the bond. • The photographs from the final inspection do not appear to show any personal items of a sensitive nature. • The tenants may wish to write to the landlord about what happened to their belongings. • The landlord may have been entitled to make a claim against the bond without the tenants’ agreement, pursuant to section 22A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The available evidence does not indicate that the landlord has taken advantage of this provision in some way. Filing fee
The tenants have succeeded in recovering part of the bond. Moreover, an application to the Tribunal was necessary to obtain a refund. I award the tenants the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639489 — Cleanliness at 180 Idris Road, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639489 — Cleanliness at 180 Idris Road, Christchurch 8052

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