What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4690478?

The tribunal order states: Travis Mackay and Tássia Allum to pay Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4690478?

Cleaning: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $395.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4690478?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4690478?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9771610-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4690478?

The tribunal order states: Travis Mackay and Tássia Allum to pay Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4690478?

Cleaning: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $395.03 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4690478?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4690478?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9771610-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Tainui Terrace, Tawa, Wellington 5028 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4690478 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4690478 — net $1,090.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$325.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Cupboard replacement	$395.03	Cupboard replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,090.47
Bond	$2,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,090.47

Travis Mackay and Tássia Allum to pay Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent for Sharon Gamble $1,090.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 (6456462-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Team Group Rentals Limited as agent for Sharon Gamble: $1,090.47 Travis Mackay and Tássia Allum: $1,809.53

The amount to pay is calculated as follows:

The application by Travis Mackay and Tássia Allum is dismissed because it is not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal to make the orders they requested.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The tenants requested the Tribunal to make orders to censuring the property manager and require the property manager to apologise.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Cleaning

The landlord has claimed that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean. The landlord provided photos in support of the application. The tenants believed that they left the property in a better condition than it was at the time it was rented to them. The tenants also submitted photos in evidence.

If the tenants believed that the premises was not reasonably clean when the tenancy commenced, that was a matter that needed to be dealt with at the start of the tenancy. There was insufficient evidence to prove the tenants’ claim about the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.

I have considered all the evidence and am satisfied that the premises was not left in a reasonably clean condition, especially in the kitchen and bathroom.

I have reduced the amount the tenants are to pay for cleaning from $495.00 to $350.00 because some cleaning carried out was to make the property more than reasonably clean. Carpet cleaning

The landlord has also claimed that the carpets required professional cleaning and stain removal at the end of the tenancy. The tenants stated that the stains were present when the tenancy began and that they had used a rug doctor to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant’s claim that there were no new stains on the carpet is not supported by the evidence. The carpet was cleaned by Jae carpet cleaners immediately before the tenancy commenced. No special cleaning for stains was needed. However, when Jae returned at the end of the tenancy there was an additional charge to the landlord for stains. It is reasonable to conclude that those stains happened during the tenancy. The fact that the carpet may have been old is not relevant because the landlord’s claim is only about cleaning the carpet, not replacing it. I am satisfied that although the tenants use a rug doctor, this did not adequately clean and remove stains in the carpet.

I have ordered the full amount claimed for carpet cleaning.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

A large cupboard that was suitable for indoor use only was stored outside by the tenants. The weather damaged it and it needed to be replaced. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amount ordered for the replacement cupboard is proved. It is not necessary to apply depreciation to an item such as this. Filing Fee

Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. The cross application

In their application the tenants stated that they were not seeking monetary compensation. The application by Travis Mackay and Tássia Allum is dismissed because it is not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal to make the orders requiring a property manager to apologise or for the Tribunal to discipline a property manager.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4690478 — net $1,090.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$325.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Cupboard replacement	$395.03	Cupboard replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,090.47
Bond	$2,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,090.47

Order

Travis Mackay and Tássia Allum to pay Team Group Rentals Limited As Agent for Sharon Gamble $1,090.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 (6456462-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Team Group Rentals Limited as agent for Sharon Gamble: $1,090.47 Travis Mackay and Tássia Allum: $1,809.53
The amount to pay is calculated as follows:
The application by Travis Mackay and Tássia Allum is dismissed because it is not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal to make the orders they requested.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants requested the Tribunal to make orders to censuring the property manager and require the property manager to apologise.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Cleaning
The landlord has claimed that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean. The landlord provided photos in support of the application. The tenants believed that they left the property in a better condition than it was at the time it was rented to them. The tenants also submitted photos in evidence.
If the tenants believed that the premises was not reasonably clean when the tenancy commenced, that was a matter that needed to be dealt with at the start of the tenancy. There was insufficient evidence to prove the tenants’ claim about the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
I have considered all the evidence and am satisfied that the premises was not left in a reasonably clean condition, especially in the kitchen and bathroom.
I have reduced the amount the tenants are to pay for cleaning from $495.00 to $350.00 because some cleaning carried out was to make the property more than reasonably clean. Carpet cleaning
The landlord has also claimed that the carpets required professional cleaning and stain removal at the end of the tenancy. The tenants stated that the stains were present when the tenancy began and that they had used a rug doctor to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim that there were no new stains on the carpet is not supported by the evidence. The carpet was cleaned by Jae carpet cleaners immediately before the tenancy commenced. No special cleaning for stains was needed. However, when Jae returned at the end of the tenancy there was an additional charge to the landlord for stains. It is reasonable to conclude that those stains happened during the tenancy. The fact that the carpet may have been old is not relevant because the landlord’s claim is only about cleaning the carpet, not replacing it. I am satisfied that although the tenants use a rug doctor, this did not adequately clean and remove stains in the carpet.
I have ordered the full amount claimed for carpet cleaning.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
A large cupboard that was suitable for indoor use only was stored outside by the tenants. The weather damaged it and it needed to be replaced. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered for the replacement cupboard is proved. It is not necessary to apply depreciation to an item such as this. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. The cross application
In their application the tenants stated that they were not seeking monetary compensation. The application by Travis Mackay and Tássia Allum is dismissed because it is not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal to make the orders requiring a property manager to apologise or for the Tribunal to discipline a property manager.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4690478 — Cleanliness at 15 Tainui Terrace, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4690478 — Cleanliness at 15 Tainui Terrace, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions