What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4821138?

The tribunal order states: 23 Property Management Limited must pay Vishal Jasuja $438.56 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4821138?

2023: $85.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (26 months of 50% of t…: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Overpayment from charg…: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4821138?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4821138?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10501166-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4821138?

The tribunal order states: 23 Property Management Limited must pay Vishal Jasuja $438.56 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4821138?

2023: $85.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: (26 months of 50% of t…: $650.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Overpayment from charg…: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4821138?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4821138?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10501166-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

237C Titirangi Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4821138 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4821138 — net $438.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Overpayment from charging fixed water	$276.00		Overpayment from charging fixed water
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: (26 months of 50% of the monthly		$650.00	(26 months of 50% of the monthly
2023		$85.00	2023
Total award	$296.44	$735.00
Net award		$438.56
Bond		$1,845.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$438.56

Order

23 Property Management Limited must pay Vishal Jasuja $438.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,845.00 (5414314-006) to Vishal Jasuja immediately.

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.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenancy ended on 6 September 2023. The tenant had moved out of the premise on 31 August 2023 and used the extra week to extensively clean and tidy the premise to the required standard.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the ceiling and upper walls in the premise were covered in a pink and black looking mould when the landlord undertook the exit inspection on 13 September 2023 and the yard was full of weeds and some stumps that needed to be removed or cut off at ground level Mould
The photograph taken shows a level of mould on the ceiling and upper walls in the on-suite that could not have grown in a week unless the walls and ceiling were very damp due to some sort of leak or ventilation problem.
The tenant says he had trouble keeping that room mould free during the tenancy and had to constantly keep cleaning the walls and the ceiling. He provided evidence he had engaged a professional cleaning company to clean the kitchen and bathrooms, including the walls and ceilings. He says he should not be held liable for the mould on the ceilings as the ceiling and walls in the on- suite were clean on 6 September 2023, when he gave the landlord vacant possession and the house had been locked up and not ventilated for a week when the photograph was taken.
I am not satisfied the level of mould on the ceiling and walls would have grown on a dry ceiling/wall in 7 days, even if the house was not being aired out in that time. On the balance of probabilities, the cleaning company smeared the mould across the ceiling and walls when trying to remove it, so it may have appeared to the tenant it had been cleaned when it was not cleaned well enough not to regrow rapidly. The tenant should hold the cleaning company liable for not having done a thorough clean of the ceiling and walls. He was given time by the landlord to get the company back, but instructed the landlord to get the mould removed and he would pay for it. When he went to inspect the mould he stated that it had not looked like that when he handed back possession of the premise and refused to pay the cost of having the mould removed.
The landlord showed a picture of the ceiling under the current tenancy. In mid- April this year there was no sign of mould on the ceiling or wall of the ensuite. The landlord claimed that is because the walls and ceiling have no leaks or dampness, and this is evidence the tenant failed to clean the on-suite walls and ceiling thoroughly after not fully ventilating the room during the tenancy.
The tenant claims that the walls and ceiling were not damp or wet during the tenancy and that he had ventilated it well.
I find the amount of mould on the walls and ceiling could not have grown in a week. I am satisfied the tenant’s cleaner had not cleaned these areas well enough and the mould retuned very quickly. Therefore, I award compensation of $276.60 to the landlord for the cost it incurred in remedying the mould.
The amount ordered is proven. Yard
The landlord also says the tenant failed to keep the garden weed free and this resulted in the landlord incurring $1,758.00 plus GST of gardening expenses to weed eat the section, cut out some tree stumps at ground level from the hedge that had been removed, a general weed spray, laying ne bark and weed mat.
The tenant provided email evidence at in July 2021, the prior property manager and owner had agreed that the weed mat was failing and needed to be replaced and that the landlord and tenant would go halves in keeping the grounds maintained (except for the hedge that was deemed to be the responsibility of the landlord) until the weed mat was replaced. The current property manager confirmed this with the owner over the phone during the hearing.
The tenant also produced an invoice for weed spraying and ground maintenance dated 5 July 2021 for $287.50 that he says the owner and he paid 50% of after their discussion about the weed mat.
The tenant produced proof that he had continued to pay $50.00 per month after that date to keep the yard tidy. He says the landlord did not reimburse him for the $25 per month they had agreed. The amount owing to him was for 26 weeks at $25.00 per week, totalling $650.00. The property manager confirmed this was the amount the owner had agreed to pay for yard maintenance each month and it was owing to the tenant.
The amount ordered is proven. Overpayment of outgoings
The tenant confirmed the prior property management company had charged him for the fixed water rates charges. This had resulted in an $85.00 credit on his ledger at the time the new property management company took over the management of the premises.
I have included this overpayment in my Order above so the property management company can legitimately pay it out to the tenant. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because 23 Property Management Limited has succeeded with one of its two claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4821138 — net $438.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Overpayment from charging fixed water	$276.00		Overpayment from charging fixed water
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: (26 months of 50% of the monthly		$650.00	(26 months of 50% of the monthly
2023		$85.00	2023
Total award	$296.44	$735.00
Net award		$438.56
Bond		$1,845.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$438.56

Order

23 Property Management Limited must pay Vishal Jasuja $438.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,845.00 (5414314-006) to Vishal Jasuja immediately.

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.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenancy ended on 6 September 2023. The tenant had moved out of the premise on 31 August 2023 and used the extra week to extensively clean and tidy the premise to the required standard.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the ceiling and upper walls in the premise were covered in a pink and black looking mould when the landlord undertook the exit inspection on 13 September 2023 and the yard was full of weeds and some stumps that needed to be removed or cut off at ground level Mould
The photograph taken shows a level of mould on the ceiling and upper walls in the on-suite that could not have grown in a week unless the walls and ceiling were very damp due to some sort of leak or ventilation problem.
The tenant says he had trouble keeping that room mould free during the tenancy and had to constantly keep cleaning the walls and the ceiling. He provided evidence he had engaged a professional cleaning company to clean the kitchen and bathrooms, including the walls and ceilings. He says he should not be held liable for the mould on the ceilings as the ceiling and walls in the on- suite were clean on 6 September 2023, when he gave the landlord vacant possession and the house had been locked up and not ventilated for a week when the photograph was taken.
I am not satisfied the level of mould on the ceiling and walls would have grown on a dry ceiling/wall in 7 days, even if the house was not being aired out in that time. On the balance of probabilities, the cleaning company smeared the mould across the ceiling and walls when trying to remove it, so it may have appeared to the tenant it had been cleaned when it was not cleaned well enough not to regrow rapidly. The tenant should hold the cleaning company liable for not having done a thorough clean of the ceiling and walls. He was given time by the landlord to get the company back, but instructed the landlord to get the mould removed and he would pay for it. When he went to inspect the mould he stated that it had not looked like that when he handed back possession of the premise and refused to pay the cost of having the mould removed.
The landlord showed a picture of the ceiling under the current tenancy. In mid- April this year there was no sign of mould on the ceiling or wall of the ensuite. The landlord claimed that is because the walls and ceiling have no leaks or dampness, and this is evidence the tenant failed to clean the on-suite walls and ceiling thoroughly after not fully ventilating the room during the tenancy.
The tenant claims that the walls and ceiling were not damp or wet during the tenancy and that he had ventilated it well.
I find the amount of mould on the walls and ceiling could not have grown in a week. I am satisfied the tenant’s cleaner had not cleaned these areas well enough and the mould retuned very quickly. Therefore, I award compensation of $276.60 to the landlord for the cost it incurred in remedying the mould.
The amount ordered is proven. Yard
The landlord also says the tenant failed to keep the garden weed free and this resulted in the landlord incurring $1,758.00 plus GST of gardening expenses to weed eat the section, cut out some tree stumps at ground level from the hedge that had been removed, a general weed spray, laying ne bark and weed mat.
The tenant provided email evidence at in July 2021, the prior property manager and owner had agreed that the weed mat was failing and needed to be replaced and that the landlord and tenant would go halves in keeping the grounds maintained (except for the hedge that was deemed to be the responsibility of the landlord) until the weed mat was replaced. The current property manager confirmed this with the owner over the phone during the hearing.
The tenant also produced an invoice for weed spraying and ground maintenance dated 5 July 2021 for $287.50 that he says the owner and he paid 50% of after their discussion about the weed mat.
The tenant produced proof that he had continued to pay $50.00 per month after that date to keep the yard tidy. He says the landlord did not reimburse him for the $25 per month they had agreed. The amount owing to him was for 26 weeks at $25.00 per week, totalling $650.00. The property manager confirmed this was the amount the owner had agreed to pay for yard maintenance each month and it was owing to the tenant.
The amount ordered is proven. Overpayment of outgoings
The tenant confirmed the prior property management company had charged him for the fixed water rates charges. This had resulted in an $85.00 credit on his ledger at the time the new property management company took over the management of the premises.
I have included this overpayment in my Order above so the property management company can legitimately pay it out to the tenant. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because 23 Property Management Limited has succeeded with one of its two claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4821138 — Tenancy dispute at 237C Titirangi Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4821138 — Tenancy dispute at 237C Titirangi Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

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