How much money was awarded in case 4687394?

Cleaning: $355.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $899.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4687394?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4687394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9537351-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4687394?

Cleaning: $355.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $899.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4687394?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4687394?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9537351-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

218 Mine Road, Whakapara, RD 2, Hikurangi 0182 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4687394 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4687394?

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 4687394 — net $1,774.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Hole in wall	$500.00	Repairs: Hole in wall
Cleaning	$899.00	The claim for carpet cleaning (five hours of labour plus Rug Doctor hire) is fair and reasonable. This is a large (four bedroom) house.
Carpet Cleaning	$355.00	The claim for carpet cleaning (five hours of labour plus Rug Doctor hire) is fair and reasonable. This is a large (four bedroom) house.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,774.44
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,774.44

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

Brad Woodman to pay David Neumann and Ashlee Crane $1,774.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5563211-002) immediately apportioned as follows: David Neumann and Ashlee Crane: $1,774.44 Brad Woodman: $825.56

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 1 July 2022 and ended on 14 May 2023.

The landlord’s application seeks cleaning, carpet cleaning, repair, and septic tank cleaning costs.

The hearing took place in Whangarei on 11 October 2023.

Both parties attended the hearing. Cleaning, carpet cleaning

Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 1 .

The claim seeks $1,672.10 for end of tenancy cleaning (including carpet cleaning) per an invoice from Windlebourne Cleaning.

The landlords provided photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.

The photographs show that parts of the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, in particular the garage, ceilings, walls, and skirtings. The carpets are not obviously stained, but they are dirty.

The claim for carpet cleaning (five hours of labour plus Rug Doctor hire) is fair and reasonable. This is a large (four bedroom) house. The labour rate charged for cleaning ($55/hour) is above market rates in the area. I will award 5 hours of labour at $45/hr plus the Rug Doctor hire.

The invoice includes 15 hours of general cleaning. Having regard to the photographs, I am satisfied that this is a fair reflection of the amount of work required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I will award 15 hours of cleaning at $45 per hour. The travel costs claimed are fair and reasonable. Septic tank cleaning

The tenancy was granted to six occupants – three adults and three children.

The tenants asked whether they could have two additional occupants for several months.

This was agreed on the basis that the tenants paid additional rent. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)

The tenants did make additional payments, but this was complicated by the fact that they also paid their bond in instalments.

The additional occupants stayed for longer than was originally intended.

The tenants eventually decided that they did not want to be separated, and they gave notice to find a larger property.

During these conversations Mr Woodman made an offer to pay for the septic tank to be emptied.

The landlords now seek that cost ($475.00).

The cost of emptying the septic tank would normally be borne by the landlord.

Mr Woodman acknowledged that at one point he did suggest that he could pay for the septic tank, but he did not consider that it was part of the formal agreement with the landlords. Mr Woodman submitted that the landlords were compensated for the additional occupants by the additional rent payment.

I accept Mr Woodman’s argument. Generally, landlords cannot make an agreement with the tenant that imposes a higher obligation on the tenant than the Residential Tenancies At provides for 2 . The agreement about additional rent, which is noted in the written tenancy agreement, was sufficient compensation to the landlords in return for agreeing to additional occupants. Damage

The landlords seek compensation for: a. Damage to a wall in the wallway ($830.90). b. Damage to shower drain traps and roman blinds ($60.00).

Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear during the period of the tenancy.

Mr Woodman did not dispute that the damage to the wall occurred during his tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear.

Mr Woodman disputed the repair cost claimed.

The claim seeks $830.90 for the repair per an invoice from Glen Dunn.

The repair cost is at least double the amount that the Tribunal usually sees for repairs to holes in walls. I accept that in this instance the damage was reasonably sizeable (a crack of about 15cm according to the repair invoice, although Mr Woodman disputed this assessment). I also acknowledge that the 2 Section 11 RTA repair necessitated several trips to the property, which is in rural Hikurangi, and the repairer is entitled to charge for travel.

However, the amount of labour charged on the invoice (5.75 hours) is, in my view, excessive.

I will award compensation of $500.00 for this damage.

Mr Woodman disputed the claim for damage to drain traps and Roman blinds. The traps are plastic. Ms Crane’s photographs shown they have cracked.

I accept that the trap and Roman blinds are relatively short life-span chattels that require periodic replacement due to normal wear and tear. The landlords agreed to eight people occupying the premises. Their expectations of reasonable wear must be set accordingly.

It is not proven that the damage to the traps and blinds is beyond fair wear and tear and this part of the landlords’ claim is dismissed. Filing fee, bond

The landlord has been partially successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.

The landlord will receive $1,774.44 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4687394 — net $1,774.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Hole in wall	$500.00	Repairs: Hole in wall
Cleaning	$899.00	The claim for carpet cleaning (five hours of labour plus Rug Doctor hire) is fair and reasonable. This is a large (four bedroom) house.
Carpet Cleaning	$355.00	The claim for carpet cleaning (five hours of labour plus Rug Doctor hire) is fair and reasonable. This is a large (four bedroom) house.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,774.44
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,774.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Brad Woodman to pay David Neumann and Ashlee Crane $1,774.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (5563211-002) immediately apportioned as follows: David Neumann and Ashlee Crane: $1,774.44 Brad Woodman: $825.56

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 1 July 2022 and ended on 14 May 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks cleaning, carpet cleaning, repair, and septic tank cleaning costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 11 October 2023.
Both parties attended the hearing. Cleaning, carpet cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 1 .
The claim seeks $1,672.10 for end of tenancy cleaning (including carpet cleaning) per an invoice from Windlebourne Cleaning.
The landlords provided photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The photographs show that parts of the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, in particular the garage, ceilings, walls, and skirtings. The carpets are not obviously stained, but they are dirty.
The claim for carpet cleaning (five hours of labour plus Rug Doctor hire) is fair and reasonable. This is a large (four bedroom) house. The labour rate charged for cleaning ($55/hour) is above market rates in the area. I will award 5 hours of labour at $45/hr plus the Rug Doctor hire.
The invoice includes 15 hours of general cleaning. Having regard to the photographs, I am satisfied that this is a fair reflection of the amount of work required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I will award 15 hours of cleaning at $45 per hour. The travel costs claimed are fair and reasonable. Septic tank cleaning
The tenancy was granted to six occupants – three adults and three children.
The tenants asked whether they could have two additional occupants for several months.
This was agreed on the basis that the tenants paid additional rent. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
The tenants did make additional payments, but this was complicated by the fact that they also paid their bond in instalments.
The additional occupants stayed for longer than was originally intended.
The tenants eventually decided that they did not want to be separated, and they gave notice to find a larger property.
During these conversations Mr Woodman made an offer to pay for the septic tank to be emptied.
The landlords now seek that cost ($475.00).
The cost of emptying the septic tank would normally be borne by the landlord.
Mr Woodman acknowledged that at one point he did suggest that he could pay for the septic tank, but he did not consider that it was part of the formal agreement with the landlords. Mr Woodman submitted that the landlords were compensated for the additional occupants by the additional rent payment.
I accept Mr Woodman’s argument. Generally, landlords cannot make an agreement with the tenant that imposes a higher obligation on the tenant than the Residential Tenancies At provides for 2 . The agreement about additional rent, which is noted in the written tenancy agreement, was sufficient compensation to the landlords in return for agreeing to additional occupants. Damage
The landlords seek compensation for: a. Damage to a wall in the wallway ($830.90). b. Damage to shower drain traps and roman blinds ($60.00).
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear during the period of the tenancy.
Mr Woodman did not dispute that the damage to the wall occurred during his tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
Mr Woodman disputed the repair cost claimed.
The claim seeks $830.90 for the repair per an invoice from Glen Dunn.
The repair cost is at least double the amount that the Tribunal usually sees for repairs to holes in walls. I accept that in this instance the damage was reasonably sizeable (a crack of about 15cm according to the repair invoice, although Mr Woodman disputed this assessment). I also acknowledge that the 2 Section 11 RTA repair necessitated several trips to the property, which is in rural Hikurangi, and the repairer is entitled to charge for travel.
However, the amount of labour charged on the invoice (5.75 hours) is, in my view, excessive.
I will award compensation of $500.00 for this damage.
Mr Woodman disputed the claim for damage to drain traps and Roman blinds. The traps are plastic. Ms Crane’s photographs shown they have cracked.
I accept that the trap and Roman blinds are relatively short life-span chattels that require periodic replacement due to normal wear and tear. The landlords agreed to eight people occupying the premises. Their expectations of reasonable wear must be set accordingly.
It is not proven that the damage to the traps and blinds is beyond fair wear and tear and this part of the landlords’ claim is dismissed. Filing fee, bond
The landlord has been partially successful in this application and I will award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
The landlord will receive $1,774.44 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4687394 — Cleanliness at 218 Mine Road, Whakapara, RD 2, Hikurangi 0182

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4687394 — Cleanliness at 218 Mine Road, Whakapara, RD 2, Hikurangi 0182

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions