How much money was awarded in case 4657970?

Cleaning: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $240.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4657970?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4657970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9406991-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4657970?

Cleaning: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $240.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4657970?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4657970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9406991-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Belleaire Court, West Harbour, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4657970 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4657970?

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 4657970 — net $340.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$80.50	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$240.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$340.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$340.94

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

Coutney Cook, Kade Smith, Liam Speer, Michael Cann and Ben Grinter to pay Crockers Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Min And Geoffrey Aldenwinckle $340.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Parties copy – Not for Publication <No_Application>2

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 landlord raised several areas that he believed had not been left reasonably clean and tidy, and provided at the hearing photographs showing a bottle cap pressed into the cracks of the decking, a mark on a wall, carpet that looked like it needed vacuuming, skirting that had dust on it, a kitchen hob that did not look clean, some dust on the floor in the entrance way, a kitchen cupboard that he said was not clean, some drips on the kitchen floor, some mould in one of the bathroom’s shower trays, and a garage floor that he said was dusty and needed mopping.

The landlord also showed photographs of the yard in a good state of repair at the beginning of the tenancy, looking in poor condition at the end of the tenancy and looking very tidy again after their maintenance person had attended.

Ms Cook for the tenants answered some of these concerns by conceding there was a bottle cap pressed into the crack of the deck, by showing a move-in inspection notice that noted marks on the wall in the lounge and by saying that the carpet had been thoroughly vacuumed but did pill and being black showed every speck of dust. Ms Cook also provided photographs at the hearing that showed the kitchen hob to be in a similar condition at the beginning of the tenancy to how they left it at the end of the tenancy, and showed the bedrooms and floors to be in what appeared to be a well cleaned state. Ms Cook also pointed out that the house was a large six-bedroom house with three bathrooms, and that the mould in the downstairs bathroom’s shower tray was beneath the silicone and therefore was not a cleaning issue.

Regarding the gardens, Ms Cook noted that the invoice included removal of some trees and shrubs. The landlord was unsure what the cutting and tipping of timber on the invoice referred to.

In response, the landlord noted that the tenant’s photographs of the interior had been taken in poor lighting.

I am satisfied that overall the house was left very close to reasonably clean and tidy in all regards. I am allowing the landlord’s claim for one of the eight hours sought because of the bottle caps pushed into the deck, because of the dust that clearly hadn’t been swept in the entrance way, and because of the skirting board that needed cleaning.

I am also allowing for half of the garden work because the garden was not reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy. However the landlord’s invoice Parties copy – Not for Publication <No_Application>3 appeared to include costs not recoverable from the tenant, and the final photos show the garden to be far better than just reasonably tidy.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because the applicant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4657970 — net $340.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$80.50	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$240.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$340.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$340.94

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Coutney Cook, Kade Smith, Liam Speer, Michael Cann and Ben Grinter to pay Crockers Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Min And Geoffrey Aldenwinckle $340.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Parties copy – Not for Publication <No_Application>2

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 landlord raised several areas that he believed had not been left reasonably clean and tidy, and provided at the hearing photographs showing a bottle cap pressed into the cracks of the decking, a mark on a wall, carpet that looked like it needed vacuuming, skirting that had dust on it, a kitchen hob that did not look clean, some dust on the floor in the entrance way, a kitchen cupboard that he said was not clean, some drips on the kitchen floor, some mould in one of the bathroom’s shower trays, and a garage floor that he said was dusty and needed mopping.
The landlord also showed photographs of the yard in a good state of repair at the beginning of the tenancy, looking in poor condition at the end of the tenancy and looking very tidy again after their maintenance person had attended.
Ms Cook for the tenants answered some of these concerns by conceding there was a bottle cap pressed into the crack of the deck, by showing a move-in inspection notice that noted marks on the wall in the lounge and by saying that the carpet had been thoroughly vacuumed but did pill and being black showed every speck of dust. Ms Cook also provided photographs at the hearing that showed the kitchen hob to be in a similar condition at the beginning of the tenancy to how they left it at the end of the tenancy, and showed the bedrooms and floors to be in what appeared to be a well cleaned state. Ms Cook also pointed out that the house was a large six-bedroom house with three bathrooms, and that the mould in the downstairs bathroom’s shower tray was beneath the silicone and therefore was not a cleaning issue.
Regarding the gardens, Ms Cook noted that the invoice included removal of some trees and shrubs. The landlord was unsure what the cutting and tipping of timber on the invoice referred to.
In response, the landlord noted that the tenant’s photographs of the interior had been taken in poor lighting.
I am satisfied that overall the house was left very close to reasonably clean and tidy in all regards. I am allowing the landlord’s claim for one of the eight hours sought because of the bottle caps pushed into the deck, because of the dust that clearly hadn’t been swept in the entrance way, and because of the skirting board that needed cleaning.
I am also allowing for half of the garden work because the garden was not reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy. However the landlord’s invoice Parties copy – Not for Publication <No_Application>3 appeared to include costs not recoverable from the tenant, and the final photos show the garden to be far better than just reasonably tidy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because the applicant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4657970 — Cleanliness at 18 Belleaire Court, West Harbour, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4657970 — Cleanliness at 18 Belleaire Court, West Harbour, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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