How much money was awarded in case 4823158?

Cleaning: $247.83 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823158?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823158?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10332916-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4823158?

Cleaning: $247.83 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4823158?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4823158?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10332916-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

317 Wellington Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4823158 — Cleanliness

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4823158?

The tribunal order states: Christian Sturm and Olivia Sturm to pay Stirling Real Estate Limited As Agent

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823158 — net $268.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning: and curtain cleaning	$247.83	Carpet cleaning: and curtain cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$268.27
Bond	$930.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$268.27

Christian Sturm and Olivia Sturm to pay Stirling Real Estate Limited As Agent For Sylvester Family Trust $268.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $930.00 (6138783-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Stirling Real Estate Limited As Agent For Sylvester Family Trust: $268.27 Christian Sturm and Olivia Sturm: $661.73

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

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

In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces.

I have been provided with photos showing the need for cleaning. I accept the lounge carpet and the large lounge curtains had stains which needed professional cleaning. The amounts claimed are proved and allowed.

The claims for the cleaning products needed for cleaning in the rest of the house are dismissed. The tenants said they cleaned. The photos I have been provided with do not show the need for additional cleaning. The landlord has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant 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.

There is a claim for replacement lounge curtains. As well as the stained curtains there were two smaller curtains which were mouldy. The curtains were bought just before the start of the tenancy, which was in February 2017. This claim is dismissed. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.

In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the new condition of the curtains at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan, which is eight years according to the depreciation information in the IR265. It seems most likely to me the curtains were due for replacement anyway, and note that it is not unusual for seven year old curtains in Wellington to have mould stains. Other orders

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenants’ application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest when orders are made against tenants.

The bond is refunded, split between both parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4823158 — net $268.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet cleaning: and curtain cleaning	$247.83	Carpet cleaning: and curtain cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$268.27
Bond	$930.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$268.27

Order

Christian Sturm and Olivia Sturm to pay Stirling Real Estate Limited As Agent For Sylvester Family Trust $268.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $930.00 (6138783-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Stirling Real Estate Limited As Agent For Sylvester Family Trust: $268.27 Christian Sturm and Olivia Sturm: $661.73

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces.
I have been provided with photos showing the need for cleaning. I accept the lounge carpet and the large lounge curtains had stains which needed professional cleaning. The amounts claimed are proved and allowed.
The claims for the cleaning products needed for cleaning in the rest of the house are dismissed. The tenants said they cleaned. The photos I have been provided with do not show the need for additional cleaning. The landlord has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant 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.
There is a claim for replacement lounge curtains. As well as the stained curtains there were two smaller curtains which were mouldy. The curtains were bought just before the start of the tenancy, which was in February 2017. This claim is dismissed. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the new condition of the curtains at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan, which is eight years according to the depreciation information in the IR265. It seems most likely to me the curtains were due for replacement anyway, and note that it is not unusual for seven year old curtains in Wellington to have mould stains. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest when orders are made against tenants.
The bond is refunded, split between both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823158 — Cleanliness at 317 Wellington Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4823158 — Cleanliness at 317 Wellington Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant 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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions