What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4644289?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6075173-005) to Nosheen

How much money was awarded in case 4644289?

Cleaning: $62.10 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644289?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644289?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9663498-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4644289?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6075173-005) to Nosheen

How much money was awarded in case 4644289?

Cleaning: $62.10 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $250.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644289?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644289?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9663498-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 58 Hayr Road, Three Kings, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4644289 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644289 — net $187.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$62.10		Cleaning
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$250.00	Loss of amenity
Total award	$62.10	$250.00
Net award		$187.90
Bond		$2,520.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$187.90

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord applied for water rates and compensation related to repairs, a missed flooring appointment, cleaning and rubbish removal.

The tenant applied for compensation and release of the bond.

The tenancy began on 31 January 2022 and ended on 28 August 2023. Landlord application

At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim relating to water rates as they had been paid.

At the end of the tenancy the landlord referred to issues but did not give the tenant an opportunity to remedy any of the issues.

The landlord claims painting and repairs relating to strips of LED lighting that had been stuck to the scotia in one of the bedrooms. After removal there was a sticky mark left behind. It is not clear that these marks could not be removed by cleaning. Instead, the landlord arranged for the area to be painted which incurred considerably more cost than cleaning would have. The landlord claims $419.75.

I do not accept that this mark could not be cleaned off. I have awarded the landlord $62.10 for cleaning. This is the amount that was invoiced to sweep the garage and remove some scuff marks off the laundry walls. I consider that all three areas should also be able to be cleaned for this amount.

The landlord claimed a further $541.65 to vacuum the carpet, remove the curtains and nets, mow and weed the grounds and remove the rubbish from the back door. This amount is not awarded for the following reasons.

I have considered the photographs produced by the landlord. I do not accept that the tenant should be responsible for the above costs. The carpet was reasonably clean, the tenant has provided an explanation in relation to the curtains and nets and the outside area of the premises was in a very similar state from when the tenants moved in. The photograph of the rubbish from the back door is of a small child’s toy and a ball. It is not clear that this is the tenant’s rubbish because the before tenancy photograph does not show this area. Even if it is the tenant’s rubbish, I consider it so minor as to not require compensation for its removal.

In relation to the curtains and nets the tenant evidence is that the tradesman employed by the landlord to hang wallpaper removed the curtains and nets and these were stored on the floor. It is therefore not clear that the condition of the curtains and nets are the responsibility of the tenant.

In relation to the lawn, there is a pile of dead branches which take up a large area. These branches were cut by tradespeople employed by the landlord and the branches remained there for a period of three months. The tenant cannot be responsible for this area when the landlord is responsible for a large pile of dead branches.

The landlord claimed $300.00 for a fee charged by a cleaning company who apparently were not given access to the premises. There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. There is no evidence of the request for access or that the tenant refused access.

I do note the tenant’s evidence that there were many tradespeople who were granted access during the tenancy, and this would have been a considerable inconvenience for the tenant. Loss of amenity

At the hearing the tenant gave evidence about the removal of the heat pump so that wallpaper could be hung. It was removed for the period from April through until July. This meant that the tenant had no heating for several months during winter.

In addition, the landlord arranged for a leak to be repaired in November and a hole was cut in the wall to carry out the repair. The tenant’s evidence is that the hole remained there for a period of 7 months and was not fixed until the second week of July.

The tenant has lost amenity due to the landlord’s actions. I consider that they should be compensated for this loss, and I award $250.00 accordingly.

As both parties have had some success, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644289 — net $187.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$62.10		Cleaning
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$250.00	Loss of amenity
Total award	$62.10	$250.00
Net award		$187.90
Bond		$2,520.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$187.90

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6075173-005) to Nosheen Shahzadi immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for water rates and compensation related to repairs, a missed flooring appointment, cleaning and rubbish removal.
The tenant applied for compensation and release of the bond.
The tenancy began on 31 January 2022 and ended on 28 August 2023. Landlord application
At the hearing the landlord withdrew the claim relating to water rates as they had been paid.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord referred to issues but did not give the tenant an opportunity to remedy any of the issues.
The landlord claims painting and repairs relating to strips of LED lighting that had been stuck to the scotia in one of the bedrooms. After removal there was a sticky mark left behind. It is not clear that these marks could not be removed by cleaning. Instead, the landlord arranged for the area to be painted which incurred considerably more cost than cleaning would have. The landlord claims $419.75.
I do not accept that this mark could not be cleaned off. I have awarded the landlord $62.10 for cleaning. This is the amount that was invoiced to sweep the garage and remove some scuff marks off the laundry walls. I consider that all three areas should also be able to be cleaned for this amount.
The landlord claimed a further $541.65 to vacuum the carpet, remove the curtains and nets, mow and weed the grounds and remove the rubbish from the back door. This amount is not awarded for the following reasons.
I have considered the photographs produced by the landlord. I do not accept that the tenant should be responsible for the above costs. The carpet was reasonably clean, the tenant has provided an explanation in relation to the curtains and nets and the outside area of the premises was in a very similar state from when the tenants moved in. The photograph of the rubbish from the back door is of a small child’s toy and a ball. It is not clear that this is the tenant’s rubbish because the before tenancy photograph does not show this area. Even if it is the tenant’s rubbish, I consider it so minor as to not require compensation for its removal.
In relation to the curtains and nets the tenant evidence is that the tradesman employed by the landlord to hang wallpaper removed the curtains and nets and these were stored on the floor. It is therefore not clear that the condition of the curtains and nets are the responsibility of the tenant.
In relation to the lawn, there is a pile of dead branches which take up a large area. These branches were cut by tradespeople employed by the landlord and the branches remained there for a period of three months. The tenant cannot be responsible for this area when the landlord is responsible for a large pile of dead branches.
The landlord claimed $300.00 for a fee charged by a cleaning company who apparently were not given access to the premises. There is insufficient evidence to support this claim. There is no evidence of the request for access or that the tenant refused access.
I do note the tenant’s evidence that there were many tradespeople who were granted access during the tenancy, and this would have been a considerable inconvenience for the tenant. Loss of amenity
At the hearing the tenant gave evidence about the removal of the heat pump so that wallpaper could be hung. It was removed for the period from April through until July. This meant that the tenant had no heating for several months during winter.
In addition, the landlord arranged for a leak to be repaired in November and a hole was cut in the wall to carry out the repair. The tenant’s evidence is that the hole remained there for a period of 7 months and was not fixed until the second week of July.
The tenant has lost amenity due to the landlord’s actions. I consider that they should be compensated for this loss, and I award $250.00 accordingly.
As both parties have had some success, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644289 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 5, 58 Hayr Road, Three Kings, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644289 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 5, 58 Hayr Road, Three Kings, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions