What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4716338?

The tribunal order states: Marilyn Ferguson must pay Elizabeth Owen $17.45 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4716338?

Compensation: $87.45 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Sale of tenant's belon…: $70.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4716338?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4716338?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9661720-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4716338?

The tribunal order states: Marilyn Ferguson must pay Elizabeth Owen $17.45 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4716338?

Compensation: $87.45 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Sale of tenant's belon…: $70.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4716338?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4716338?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9661720-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25A Sillary Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4716338 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4716338 — net $17.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for removing garden bed and reseeding	$87.45		Compensation for removing garden bed and reseeding
Compensation: Sale of tenant's belongings		$70.00	Sale of tenant's belongings
Total award	$87.45	$70.00
Net award	$17.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17.45

Order

Marilyn Ferguson must pay Elizabeth Owen $17.45 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by her daughter, Ms Penelope McKenna, who in this Order is referred to as “the tenant” interchangeably with Marilyn Ferguson, the named tenant on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord and tenant have both applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claims
The tenancy ended on 10 August 2023, following 28 days’ notice from the tenant.
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 submitted that the following hadn’t been sufficiently cleaned: a. The toilet; b. The oven; c. The exterior of some windows; d. The ranch-slider tracks; e. Some window frames; f. The grout in the shower; g. The rubbish bins (which also hadn’t been emptied); h. A light cover and a vent cover in the ceiling.
A plastic hook and sticker was also left on a window and some sticky-tape residue was left next to another window.
Photographs of the above were provided as supporting information.
The tenant disputed some of the above issues and accepted others. She stated that professional cleaners had been engaged to do a “move-out clean” and they charged $380.00 for their services. The tenant was satisfied with the service provided.
Having looked at the photos and heard the evidence of both parties I am satisfied the property was left reasonably clean and tidy. That is not to say the property was left in a “move-in-ready” state for the next tenant. A responsible landlord may choose to engage cleaners between tenancies to provide a higher level of cleanliness than is required of a tenant exiting a tenancy. That is a landlord’s prerogative and not the previous tenant’s responsibility. However, I am satisfied that a significant effort was made to clean and tidy the premises, and overall, the result was that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy.
The only possible exception to the above in my view, is that the rubbish bins should have been emptied. However I note there was no expense incurred in emptying the rubbish bins, and no photos provided to show that the bins were not left reasonably clean.
The landlord is claiming $197.50 for de-odorising the concrete floor of a conservatory, of urine smells from pet animals.
During the course of the tenancy the conservatory had carpet tiles, which were covered with a carpet, which in turn was covered with a rug. The tenant stated that prior to her mother’s tenancy, the previous tenant had kept a rabbit in the conservatory. The landlord stated that approximately half-way through the tenancy (sometime around 2019), she noticed a urine smell in the conservatory.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord asked the tenant to remove the carpet tiles which were affixed to the floor of the conservatory as she believed they were soaked with urine and causing the smell. After removing the rug and the carpet, the tenant used a solution of hydrogen peroxide, baking soda and white vinegar to attempt to dissolve the adhesive affixing the carpet tiles to the concrete floor. The tenant was only partially successful in removing the tiles and the adhesive before she decided it was not a reasonable job as part of a move- out clean.
After the tiles were removed, the landlord still noticed what she considered was the smell of urine. The landlord stated it was so strong she was required to use a ventilator when she went into the conservatory.
I am not persuaded that the smell in the conservatory was pet urine that had soaked through three layers of carpet material and adhesive, and leached into the concrete. In my view it is much more likely that the smell was the smell of very old carpet tiles, adhesive, and the products used to remove them.
This claim is dismissed.
The landlord is claiming $174.91 for the removal of a 90cm x 90cm garden bed that the tenant installed, and which the landlord says was full of the tenant’s pet’s droppings.
The tenant stated that two weeks prior to the end of the tenancy she had had two skip bins on the property, and during a walk around of the property with the landlord, the landlord had asked that some pot plants be dumped in the bins, which was done. The landlord said nothing about removing the garden bed at this time.
The tenant stated that if the landlord had requested at this time, the garden bed could have been put in the skip bin as well.
The landlord stated that it wasn’t her responsibility to notice everything that needed remedying at this stage.
The landlord conducted an inspection of the property, whether it was a formal inspection or an informal “walk around”. She gave instructions on what she wanted dealt with on the property, given the end of the tenancy was imminent. The landlord said nothing about the garden bed, and the tenant understood from this that the garden bed could stay. In my view that is a reasonable conclusion to draw.
While I accept the removal of the garden bed at the end of the tenancy is the responsibility of the tenant, if the landlord had been more attentive during the walk around, this would have mitigated the cost to the tenant; the landlord equally has a responsibility to do this. In the circumstances the landlord must contribute to the cost of removing and disposing of the garden bed, and reseeding the grass underneath. The tenant’s claims
The tenant is claiming the proceeds of sale for the following items she says the landlord sold on Facebook Marketplace without her authority. a. A roller table for $30.00 b. An outdoor table for $10.00 c. A shower seat for $20.00 d. A computer desk for $10.00 e. Three mirrors for $30.00 f. Nesting tables for $35.00 g. A wine rack for $10.00 h. Glass topped table $80.00
The items in question had been removed from the house by the tenant and put in a locked garage. A remote for the garage was given to the landlord’s mother- in-law who lived next door. The landlord stated that her mother-in-law told her that the tenant did not want the belongings in the garage anymore. The landlord also believed many perfectly good items had already been put in the skip bins and this was wasteful.
The landlord listed the items on Facebook Marketplace on 31 July 2023, after the tenant had moved into her new premises, but still ten days before the tenancy ended.
The landlord used the garage remote that had been given to her mother-in-law to access the garage.
The landlord explained some of the items were sold on Facebook Marketplace and some were not sold. The unsold items were collected from the garage by the Salvation Army. The sold items were collected from the garage by the purchasers.
The landlord submitted that Facebook Marketplace lists as “Sold” items that are withdrawn, and that of the items above only five items sold, being items a, b, c, d, e (one mirror only, for $10.00). These items realised a total of $70.00. The other items were donated to the Salvation Army.
The tenant found out about the sale of the items when she looked at Facebook Marketplace.
The tenant adjusted her claim and said she was only seeking proceeds of the items that had sold, and not compensation for items that were donated to the Salvation Army.
There has been no accusation of the landlord being dishonest in selling these items; she believed she had authority to deal with them. However, the tenant had not given anyone authority to deal with items in question.
The claim is proved.
Because both parties have been partially successful with their claims, I am not ordering any filing fee be reimbursed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4716338 — net $17.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for removing garden bed and reseeding	$87.45		Compensation for removing garden bed and reseeding
Compensation: Sale of tenant's belongings		$70.00	Sale of tenant's belongings
Total award	$87.45	$70.00
Net award	$17.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17.45

Order

Marilyn Ferguson must pay Elizabeth Owen $17.45 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by her daughter, Ms Penelope McKenna, who in this Order is referred to as “the tenant” interchangeably with Marilyn Ferguson, the named tenant on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord and tenant have both applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claims
The tenancy ended on 10 August 2023, following 28 days’ notice from the tenant.
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 submitted that the following hadn’t been sufficiently cleaned: a. The toilet; b. The oven; c. The exterior of some windows; d. The ranch-slider tracks; e. Some window frames; f. The grout in the shower; g. The rubbish bins (which also hadn’t been emptied); h. A light cover and a vent cover in the ceiling.
A plastic hook and sticker was also left on a window and some sticky-tape residue was left next to another window.
Photographs of the above were provided as supporting information.
The tenant disputed some of the above issues and accepted others. She stated that professional cleaners had been engaged to do a “move-out clean” and they charged $380.00 for their services. The tenant was satisfied with the service provided.
Having looked at the photos and heard the evidence of both parties I am satisfied the property was left reasonably clean and tidy. That is not to say the property was left in a “move-in-ready” state for the next tenant. A responsible landlord may choose to engage cleaners between tenancies to provide a higher level of cleanliness than is required of a tenant exiting a tenancy. That is a landlord’s prerogative and not the previous tenant’s responsibility. However, I am satisfied that a significant effort was made to clean and tidy the premises, and overall, the result was that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy.
The only possible exception to the above in my view, is that the rubbish bins should have been emptied. However I note there was no expense incurred in emptying the rubbish bins, and no photos provided to show that the bins were not left reasonably clean.
The landlord is claiming $197.50 for de-odorising the concrete floor of a conservatory, of urine smells from pet animals.
During the course of the tenancy the conservatory had carpet tiles, which were covered with a carpet, which in turn was covered with a rug. The tenant stated that prior to her mother’s tenancy, the previous tenant had kept a rabbit in the conservatory. The landlord stated that approximately half-way through the tenancy (sometime around 2019), she noticed a urine smell in the conservatory.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord asked the tenant to remove the carpet tiles which were affixed to the floor of the conservatory as she believed they were soaked with urine and causing the smell. After removing the rug and the carpet, the tenant used a solution of hydrogen peroxide, baking soda and white vinegar to attempt to dissolve the adhesive affixing the carpet tiles to the concrete floor. The tenant was only partially successful in removing the tiles and the adhesive before she decided it was not a reasonable job as part of a move- out clean.
After the tiles were removed, the landlord still noticed what she considered was the smell of urine. The landlord stated it was so strong she was required to use a ventilator when she went into the conservatory.
I am not persuaded that the smell in the conservatory was pet urine that had soaked through three layers of carpet material and adhesive, and leached into the concrete. In my view it is much more likely that the smell was the smell of very old carpet tiles, adhesive, and the products used to remove them.
This claim is dismissed.
The landlord is claiming $174.91 for the removal of a 90cm x 90cm garden bed that the tenant installed, and which the landlord says was full of the tenant’s pet’s droppings.
The tenant stated that two weeks prior to the end of the tenancy she had had two skip bins on the property, and during a walk around of the property with the landlord, the landlord had asked that some pot plants be dumped in the bins, which was done. The landlord said nothing about removing the garden bed at this time.
The tenant stated that if the landlord had requested at this time, the garden bed could have been put in the skip bin as well.
The landlord stated that it wasn’t her responsibility to notice everything that needed remedying at this stage.
The landlord conducted an inspection of the property, whether it was a formal inspection or an informal “walk around”. She gave instructions on what she wanted dealt with on the property, given the end of the tenancy was imminent. The landlord said nothing about the garden bed, and the tenant understood from this that the garden bed could stay. In my view that is a reasonable conclusion to draw.
While I accept the removal of the garden bed at the end of the tenancy is the responsibility of the tenant, if the landlord had been more attentive during the walk around, this would have mitigated the cost to the tenant; the landlord equally has a responsibility to do this. In the circumstances the landlord must contribute to the cost of removing and disposing of the garden bed, and reseeding the grass underneath. The tenant’s claims
The tenant is claiming the proceeds of sale for the following items she says the landlord sold on Facebook Marketplace without her authority. a. A roller table for $30.00 b. An outdoor table for $10.00 c. A shower seat for $20.00 d. A computer desk for $10.00 e. Three mirrors for $30.00 f. Nesting tables for $35.00 g. A wine rack for $10.00 h. Glass topped table $80.00
The items in question had been removed from the house by the tenant and put in a locked garage. A remote for the garage was given to the landlord’s mother- in-law who lived next door. The landlord stated that her mother-in-law told her that the tenant did not want the belongings in the garage anymore. The landlord also believed many perfectly good items had already been put in the skip bins and this was wasteful.
The landlord listed the items on Facebook Marketplace on 31 July 2023, after the tenant had moved into her new premises, but still ten days before the tenancy ended.
The landlord used the garage remote that had been given to her mother-in-law to access the garage.
The landlord explained some of the items were sold on Facebook Marketplace and some were not sold. The unsold items were collected from the garage by the Salvation Army. The sold items were collected from the garage by the purchasers.
The landlord submitted that Facebook Marketplace lists as “Sold” items that are withdrawn, and that of the items above only five items sold, being items a, b, c, d, e (one mirror only, for $10.00). These items realised a total of $70.00. The other items were donated to the Salvation Army.
The tenant found out about the sale of the items when she looked at Facebook Marketplace.
The tenant adjusted her claim and said she was only seeking proceeds of the items that had sold, and not compensation for items that were donated to the Salvation Army.
There has been no accusation of the landlord being dishonest in selling these items; she believed she had authority to deal with them. However, the tenant had not given anyone authority to deal with items in question.
The claim is proved.
Because both parties have been partially successful with their claims, I am not ordering any filing fee be reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4716338 — Tenancy dispute at 25A Sillary Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4716338 — Tenancy dispute at 25A Sillary Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

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