What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4654141?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4654141?

Cleaning: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $560.63 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,942.23 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $86.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4654141?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4654141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9386463-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4654141?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4654141?

Cleaning: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $560.63 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,942.23 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $86.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4654141?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4654141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9386463-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Renata Road, Otaki, Otaki 5512 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4654141 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4654141 — net $2,050.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 19/07/23 to 09/9/23	$3,942.23	Rent arrears 19/07/23 to 09/9/23
Rubbish removal	$86.25	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning: 50% of the invoice	$201.25	Carpet Cleaning: 50% of the invoice
Cleaning: 75% of the invoice	$560.63	Cleaning: 75% of the invoice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,050.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,050.80

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Willem Carel de Swardt and Kim Valerie de Swardt must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Jason Morris And Jane Adam $2,050.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears 19/07/23 to 09/9/23$3,942.23 Rubbish removal$86.25 Carpet Cleaning: 50% of the invoice$201.25 Cleaning: 75% of the invoice$560.63 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,810.80 Bond$2,760.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,050.80

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing remotely.
Ms Cranston appeared before me as the landlord’s agent.
Only Mr de Swardt appeared before me. Mr de Swardt informed Mrs de Swardt was in the house.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the tenant vacated the property while the tenancy continues on a fixed-term tenancy. Facts
The tenancy was fixed for a period of 12 months, starting on 20 May 2023 and ending on 20 May 2024. On 13 July 2023, Mr. de Swardt sent an email to Ms. Cranston, stating that he was giving the landlord a 28-day notice to vacate the property.
However, since the tenancy was under a fixed term, Ms. Cranston approached the landlord to see if they would agree to an early termination of the tenancy. Unfortunately, the landlord did not agree to the termination. Ms. Cranston then put the property online for rent as soon as possible. The premises remains vacant as of the hearing date today (6 September 2023).
Sometime in mid-July 2023, Mr. de Swardt's contract was terminated, which only gave him two weeks to make the necessary arrangements to vacate the property.
On 15 July 2023, Mr. de Swardt vacated the property. Ms. Cranston visited the property on 18 July 2023 to confirm that he had indeed abandoned it.
Mr. de Swardt had to vacate the premises because he could no longer afford to pay the rent. He lost his contract, which resulted in him not having the necessary funds to pay the rent. Since he remains unemployed, he is still unable to pay rent.
Additionally, Mr. de Swardt disputes the landlord's claims that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy when he vacated the property.

How much is owed for rent?

Pursuant to section 61(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) I find the tenant abandoned the premises. Under section 61(3)(b) RTA the tenant is liable for the rent until the date of the expiry of the fixed-term tenancy or the date a tenant commences the new tenancy.
Accordingly, the tenancy will continue until the fixed-term tenancy expires on 20 May 2023 or Ms Cranston finds a new tenant for the premises.
I acknowledge that the landlord has no obligation to grant a new tenancy of the premises under section 61(4) RTA. However, the landlord must take all reasonable steps to limit the loss by finding a new tenant for the premises.
The amount of rent owing between 19 July 2023 and 6 September 2023 is $3,942.23.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
Ms Cranston advanced three claims below: a. Removal of rubbish on the street; b. Carpet clean – end of tenancy; and c. End of tenancy clean. Removal of rubbish on the street
Ms Cranston submitted an exit inspection report dated 19 July 2023.
Three photos show a couple of mattresses, a BBQ and a chair left on the sidewalk.
Mr. de Swardt argued that the items he left on the sidewalk were not "rubbish". He submitted that he left them there for people to take them for free because he did not have enough space for them.
Mr de Swardt further claimed that the items he left behind were still in good working condition, and some of them were almost new.
While Mr. de Swardt may not consider those items as "rubbish", it seems apparent that no one else wanted them. In my view, Mr. de Swardt was mistaken in his assessment to say those items were not rubbish. If no one was willing to take those items and left on the sidewalk, then they should be considered as "rubbish”.
Accordingly, Mr. de Swardt is responsible for the cost of removing the rubbish, which is $86.25. Carpet clean
Mr de Sawardt did not accept he did not leave the carpet in a reasonably clean condition. He submitted that he used a carpet shampooer and cleaned the carpet.
I have reviewed the photos in the exit inspection report dated 19 July 2023. I am satisfied that some more cleaning needs to be done. In other words, I do not accept the carpet was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Accordingly, I award 50% of the total invoice amount ($402.50) claimed by the landlord, which equals to $201.25. End of tenancy clean
Mr. de Swardt denied that he left the premises in an unclean and untidy condition. He argued that “he would have been happy to move into a place as clean as they had left it”.
However, upon reviewing the exit inspection report dated 19 July 2023, I noted that the premises was not completely clean and tidy in most of the areas. I could see from the photos that there were areas with dust, dirt, and unclean floors. It is unlikely that Mr. de Swardt would have accepted the condition of the premises if he were a new tenant moving in.
That said, I accept some areas of the premises were up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Therefore, I award the landlord 75% of the invoice value ($747.50) which comes to $560.63. Filing fee
Because Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Jason Morris And Jane Adam has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4654141 — net $2,050.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 19/07/23 to 09/9/23	$3,942.23	Rent arrears 19/07/23 to 09/9/23
Rubbish removal	$86.25	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning: 50% of the invoice	$201.25	Carpet Cleaning: 50% of the invoice
Cleaning: 75% of the invoice	$560.63	Cleaning: 75% of the invoice
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,050.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,050.80

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Willem Carel de Swardt and Kim Valerie de Swardt must pay Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Jason Morris And Jane Adam $2,050.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears 19/07/23 to 09/9/23$3,942.23 Rubbish removal$86.25 Carpet Cleaning: 50% of the invoice$201.25 Cleaning: 75% of the invoice$560.63 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,810.80 Bond$2,760.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,050.80

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing remotely.
Ms Cranston appeared before me as the landlord’s agent.
Only Mr de Swardt appeared before me. Mr de Swardt informed Mrs de Swardt was in the house.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the tenant vacated the property while the tenancy continues on a fixed-term tenancy. Facts
The tenancy was fixed for a period of 12 months, starting on 20 May 2023 and ending on 20 May 2024. On 13 July 2023, Mr. de Swardt sent an email to Ms. Cranston, stating that he was giving the landlord a 28-day notice to vacate the property.
However, since the tenancy was under a fixed term, Ms. Cranston approached the landlord to see if they would agree to an early termination of the tenancy. Unfortunately, the landlord did not agree to the termination. Ms. Cranston then put the property online for rent as soon as possible. The premises remains vacant as of the hearing date today (6 September 2023).
Sometime in mid-July 2023, Mr. de Swardt's contract was terminated, which only gave him two weeks to make the necessary arrangements to vacate the property.
On 15 July 2023, Mr. de Swardt vacated the property. Ms. Cranston visited the property on 18 July 2023 to confirm that he had indeed abandoned it.
Mr. de Swardt had to vacate the premises because he could no longer afford to pay the rent. He lost his contract, which resulted in him not having the necessary funds to pay the rent. Since he remains unemployed, he is still unable to pay rent.
Additionally, Mr. de Swardt disputes the landlord's claims that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy when he vacated the property.

How much is owed for rent?

Pursuant to section 61(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) I find the tenant abandoned the premises. Under section 61(3)(b) RTA the tenant is liable for the rent until the date of the expiry of the fixed-term tenancy or the date a tenant commences the new tenancy.
Accordingly, the tenancy will continue until the fixed-term tenancy expires on 20 May 2023 or Ms Cranston finds a new tenant for the premises.
I acknowledge that the landlord has no obligation to grant a new tenancy of the premises under section 61(4) RTA. However, the landlord must take all reasonable steps to limit the loss by finding a new tenant for the premises.
The amount of rent owing between 19 July 2023 and 6 September 2023 is $3,942.23.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
Ms Cranston advanced three claims below: a. Removal of rubbish on the street; b. Carpet clean – end of tenancy; and c. End of tenancy clean. Removal of rubbish on the street
Ms Cranston submitted an exit inspection report dated 19 July 2023.
Three photos show a couple of mattresses, a BBQ and a chair left on the sidewalk.
Mr. de Swardt argued that the items he left on the sidewalk were not "rubbish". He submitted that he left them there for people to take them for free because he did not have enough space for them.
Mr de Swardt further claimed that the items he left behind were still in good working condition, and some of them were almost new.
While Mr. de Swardt may not consider those items as "rubbish", it seems apparent that no one else wanted them. In my view, Mr. de Swardt was mistaken in his assessment to say those items were not rubbish. If no one was willing to take those items and left on the sidewalk, then they should be considered as "rubbish”.
Accordingly, Mr. de Swardt is responsible for the cost of removing the rubbish, which is $86.25. Carpet clean
Mr de Sawardt did not accept he did not leave the carpet in a reasonably clean condition. He submitted that he used a carpet shampooer and cleaned the carpet.
I have reviewed the photos in the exit inspection report dated 19 July 2023. I am satisfied that some more cleaning needs to be done. In other words, I do not accept the carpet was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Accordingly, I award 50% of the total invoice amount ($402.50) claimed by the landlord, which equals to $201.25. End of tenancy clean
Mr. de Swardt denied that he left the premises in an unclean and untidy condition. He argued that “he would have been happy to move into a place as clean as they had left it”.
However, upon reviewing the exit inspection report dated 19 July 2023, I noted that the premises was not completely clean and tidy in most of the areas. I could see from the photos that there were areas with dust, dirt, and unclean floors. It is unlikely that Mr. de Swardt would have accepted the condition of the premises if he were a new tenant moving in.
That said, I accept some areas of the premises were up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Therefore, I award the landlord 75% of the invoice value ($747.50) which comes to $560.63. Filing fee
Because Berrymans Property Management & Rentals Limited As Agent For Jason Morris And Jane Adam has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4654141 — Rent arrears at 11 Renata Road, Otaki, Otaki 5512

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4654141 — Rent arrears at 11 Renata Road, Otaki, Otaki 5512

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions