What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4804177?

The tribunal order states: Kaeleb Kereama Aniwaniwa is to pay Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust

How much money was awarded in case 4804177?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $130.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804177?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10491857-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4804177?

The tribunal order states: Kaeleb Kereama Aniwaniwa is to pay Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust

How much money was awarded in case 4804177?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $130.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804177?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10491857-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 10 Martindales Road, Heathcote Valley, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4804177 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804177 — net $200.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$130.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$172.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$200.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.94

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Waters, Ms Newton and Mr Uden represented the landlord. I also heard evidence from the landlord’s witness, Mr Woodbury and from Mr Aniwaniwa’s witness, Ms Aniwaniwa.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord also applied for rent arrears but withdrew that claim at the hearing after Mr Aniwaniwa provided evidence to support the rent claimed had been paid.

Mr Aniwaniwa filed a cross application against the landlord. However, he accepts that his cross application is essentially the same as the application he filed with the Tribunal on 23 November 2023. That application was dismissed for nonattendance by Mr Aniwaniwa (order dated 18 December 2023 under application number 4749951). This means that Mr Aniwaniwa’s cross application cannot proceed due to the principle known as res judicata or issue estoppel. His remedy, if he is dissatisfied with the 18 December 2023, is to apply for a rehearing of his 23 November application.

Mr Aniwaniwa’s cross application is therefore struck out: section 92A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

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

The landlord claims that Mr Aniwaniwa did not leave the premises reasonably clean, did not remove all rubbish, and did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

I am satisfied that the landlord has established that some areas were not left reasonably clean, in particular, the inside the kitchen cupboards and marks on a concrete block wall. However, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr Aniwaniwa did not leave the other areas claimed (the oven, toilet and bathroom areas) in a reasonably clean condition. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed for cleaning ($386.39) to $150.00.

The landlord claims that Mr Aniwaniwa left the rubbish bins full of unsorted rubbish (rubbish in the recycle bin) and left the wardrobe door outside, and these had to be taken to the dump (the door had been damaged by the weather and was unusable). They claim the sum of $257.50. Mr Aniwaniwa accepts that he left the wardrobe door outside. However, he disputes the claim to empty the bins. His witness (his mother) said that the recycle bin had only recycled materials in it, and the bins were left on the roadside for collection. I accept Ms Aniwaniwa(s) evidence regarding the bins. It was supported by photographs of the material in the bins. In the circumstances I consider $130.00 reasonable to dispose of the wardrobe door.

On 13 December 2023 (two days after the tenancy ended) the landlord instructed a locksmith to have the locks changed because Mr Aniwaniwa had not returned the keys. Then at 12.39pm on 13 December Ms Aniwaniwa went to the landlord’s office and handed the keys to Mr Woodbury. Mr Woodbury is a tenancy advisor working on the Compliance Team for the landlord. When Mr Woodbury handed the keys to the placement team, he was told that the locks had already been changed. He believes they were changed around 1.40pm.

I find Mr Aniwaniwa liable for the cost to change the locks. A tenant is required to return the keys at the end of the tenancy, that is when it ended on 11 December 2023. If a tenant fails to do so the landlord may have the locks changed and claim the cost to do so from the tenant. There was no dispute that Mr Aniwaniwa had not returned the keys at the end of the tenancy (on 11 December). The landlord was therefore entitled to have the locks changed and they arranged with a locksmith for that to be done on 13 December. I accept that Ms Aniwaniwa returned the keys to Mr Woodbury shortly before the locks were changed but the landlord had already given instructions to the locksmith to have the locks changed and, by the time the keys were given to the correct person, the work had been completed.

The amount ordered to change the locks has been established by the production of an invoice.

The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

Mr Aniwaniwa applied for a suppression order. Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

Mr Aniwaniwa has been wholly unsuccessful in his claims/defence. Suppression is therefore not granted.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804177 — net $200.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$130.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$172.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$200.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.94

Mr Aniwaniwa’s cross application is therefore struck out: section 92A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

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

The amount ordered to change the locks has been established by the production of an invoice.

The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

Mr Aniwaniwa has been wholly unsuccessful in his claims/defence. Suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804177 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 10 Martindales Road, Heathcote Valley,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804177 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 10 Martindales Road, Heathcote Valley,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions