What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4862445?

The tribunal order states: Rempstone Property Management Limited as agent for Owner must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4862445?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862445?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862445?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10466616-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4862445?

The tribunal order states: Rempstone Property Management Limited as agent for Owner must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4862445?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862445?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862445?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10466616-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

155 Maidstone Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4862445 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862445 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

Rempstone Property Management Limited as agent for Owner must pay Mitchell Taylor Green, Jeremy Walcot Grierson Wood, Ethan James Cogle, Alexander Robert Yallop and Jacob Robert Harvey-Hayward $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (5820129-005) to Mitchell Taylor Green, Jeremy Walcot Grierson Wood, Ethan James Cogle, Alexander Robert Yallop and Jacob Robert Harvey-Hayward immediately.
The tenants’ compensation claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Green, Mr Cogle and Mr Wood attended on behalf of the tenants.
Ms Sun attended on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, $1,000 compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord did not request any bond refund in the application as it was under the mistaken belief that the bond had already been paid out in full to the tenant.
For reasons unknown, this is not the case, the landlord amended their application to include partial refund of the bond on realising that the bond was still available.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was to end on 6 December 2023.
The tenant requested a further two days to complete the required cleaning of the property. The keys were handed back on 8 December 2023.
The end of the rent period was 5 December 2023 and rent was paid to that date. Three days rent were outstanding.
The landlord provided rent records to confirm the above.
The tenants gave evidence that they had asked for the additional days for cleaning not realising that they would be charged rent for those days. They considered that the landlord had granted the extra time without explaining that they would be liable for rent.
I consider that the tenants should have known that they would be liable for rent until possession was handed back to the landlord even if that had not specifically been brought to their attention.
However, the arrears amount, being $342.86 is not ordered for reasons explained below.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The ingoing tenancy report, which was signed by one tenant and the then property manager, has a handwritten note which reads, “Brand new carpet throughout.”
The tenants accepted that some of the carpet may have been brand new but disputed that it all was. They also disputed that they should be liable for any stains although acknowledged that they had accepted responsibility for the cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy.
After the hearing the landlord provide photographs which show multiple stains on the carpet. They also show carpet that, aside from the stains, appears to be quite new.
At the end of the tenancy, there were a number of items that had not been resolved to the satisfaction of the landlord.
On 13 December 2023 the property manager emailed the tenants (and the new property management company) thanking them for their efforts and listing the outstanding items. This included the following: • Carpet stains: As per the ingoing report, there are stains on the brand new carpet that require removal/ I have received an email from Mitchell, confirming that a carpet cleaner will be arranged.
The last paragraph reads, “Mitchell has confirmed that the tenant will arrange for stain removal and gardening services, and we will accordingly cancel the contractors we had initially assigned. Could you please confirm that expected completion date for all the mentioned tasks?”
There were many other items mentioned and these were all resolved in some way and do not form part of this claim.
On 14 December a follow up email was sent confirming that the garden work had been completed by the landlord’s contractor as no alternative resolution method had been received from the tenant.
The tenants asked the cost and also said, “And you can use your contractor to clean the carpet”.
The tenants gave evidence that they had paid the amount requested for the garden work.
On 15 December the landlord contacted the tenant again about various outstanding matters and also said they would support the tenants if they wished to make a claim with the Tribunal saying, “Our aim is to engage a mediator or adjudicator to facilitate a fair and final decision.”
There was some further correspondence in relation to window damage but nothing further in relation to the carpet was provided to the Tribunal.
An invoice for carpet cleaning and spot stain removal (x7) was provided in the sum of $530.00. The invoice was dated 14 December 2023.
No evidence was provided to show when this was sent to the tenants but both parties suggested that the issue had got missed amongst other matters that were still being resolved at that time.
The tenants did not pay for the carpet cleaning invoice.
The next set of correspondence provided to the Tribunal was from March 2024.
On 5 March the tenants emailed the landlord saying in part, “We see that people have already moved in as well. So if you could please tell the [owner] to pay us our bond back or we will be going to the tenancy tribunal.”
The named landlord was no longer managing the premises following the end of this tenancy. Perhaps as a consequence, the owner was slow to respond to them and instructions were not being received in a timely way.
Eventually, on 18 March 2024, the landlord said, “The [owner] said we can release your full bond, we will send you the bond refund form soon.”
The landlord did send the bond refund form which had been filled out already with the full amount of the bond going to the tenants. The tenants all signed as required and sent it back to the landlord.
Further correspondence from the landlord confirmed that the form had been sent to the Bond Centre and queried whether the bond had been received by the tenants.
After the hearing the landlord provided additional evidence to show that the bond form had indeed been completed by the landlord and sent to the Bond Centre with the full bond to be paid to the tenants.
The landlord emailed on 27 March saying, “The bond has already been refunded to you, will you cancel the mediation? Or do you want mediation?”
The tenants had made an application to Tenancy Services on 12 March 2024 and on receipt of this email they cancelled the mediation.
The tenants gave evidence that they cancelled the mediation on the basis that the owner had agreed to refund the bond in full and they had signed a bond form confirming this and that form had been sent to the bond centre.
When the bond did not arrive, the tenants followed it up only to be told by Tenancy Services that no bond refund form had been received.
It is clear from the emails that the landlord believed that the bond had been refunded in full to the tenants. Their application to the Tribunal confirms that this was its belief.
There is currently no explanation as to why the bond has not been refunded but the suggestion is that the previous property manager is still listed as a landlord (with the Bond Centre) and that may have prevented the bond being paid out to the tenants.
However, it is clear that the tenants were keen to get the matter resolved and have their bond returned to them. They applied to the Tribunal to assist with this.
That application was withdrawn by the tenants on the basis that they were told by the landlord that the bond would be refunded to them in full.
It was understandable that the tenants believed that this meant that all matters were resolved, including any outstanding claim the landlord may have had against the bond.
If this was not the case, the landlord should have advised them accordingly and they could have decided whether to accept a lesser bond refund amount or they could have continued with the scheduled mediation.
From the tenants’ perspective, the owner had instructed that the full bond was to be paid to them. They had signed a refund form to reflect that (which had been completed and sent to them by the landlord) and had been told to expect the full bond in due course.
I find that it was entirely reasonable for the tenants to believe that this resolved all matters between the parties. They withdrew their original claim from the Tribunal on the basis that the bond was to be paid to them in full.
In these circumstances, no compensation for carpet cleaning (or rent arrears detailed above) is ordered.

Should the landlord pay compensation?

The tenants claimed compensation in the sum of $1,000.00 for delays in payment of the bond.
It is unfortunate that the bond issue has taken this long to be resolved but I find that the landlord honestly believed that the full bond had been paid to the tenants in March when the signed form was sent to the bond centre.
There is no evidence that the landlord prevented the bond payment or intentionally held it up after the form was completed in March this year.
The landlord was no longer managing this property and the tenancy had ended months before. The outstanding matters had fallen from view and had not been actively pursued.
I do not find any intentional wrongdoing or intention to mislead on the part of the landlord and no damages can or should be awarded in relation to the delay in paying out the bond. Filing fee
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4862445 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

Rempstone Property Management Limited as agent for Owner must pay Mitchell Taylor Green, Jeremy Walcot Grierson Wood, Ethan James Cogle, Alexander Robert Yallop and Jacob Robert Harvey-Hayward $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (5820129-005) to Mitchell Taylor Green, Jeremy Walcot Grierson Wood, Ethan James Cogle, Alexander Robert Yallop and Jacob Robert Harvey-Hayward immediately.
The tenants’ compensation claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Green, Mr Cogle and Mr Wood attended on behalf of the tenants.
Ms Sun attended on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, $1,000 compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord did not request any bond refund in the application as it was under the mistaken belief that the bond had already been paid out in full to the tenant.
For reasons unknown, this is not the case, the landlord amended their application to include partial refund of the bond on realising that the bond was still available.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was to end on 6 December 2023.
The tenant requested a further two days to complete the required cleaning of the property. The keys were handed back on 8 December 2023.
The end of the rent period was 5 December 2023 and rent was paid to that date. Three days rent were outstanding.
The landlord provided rent records to confirm the above.
The tenants gave evidence that they had asked for the additional days for cleaning not realising that they would be charged rent for those days. They considered that the landlord had granted the extra time without explaining that they would be liable for rent.
I consider that the tenants should have known that they would be liable for rent until possession was handed back to the landlord even if that had not specifically been brought to their attention.
However, the arrears amount, being $342.86 is not ordered for reasons explained below.

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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The ingoing tenancy report, which was signed by one tenant and the then property manager, has a handwritten note which reads, “Brand new carpet throughout.”
The tenants accepted that some of the carpet may have been brand new but disputed that it all was. They also disputed that they should be liable for any stains although acknowledged that they had accepted responsibility for the cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy.
After the hearing the landlord provide photographs which show multiple stains on the carpet. They also show carpet that, aside from the stains, appears to be quite new.
At the end of the tenancy, there were a number of items that had not been resolved to the satisfaction of the landlord.
On 13 December 2023 the property manager emailed the tenants (and the new property management company) thanking them for their efforts and listing the outstanding items. This included the following: • Carpet stains: As per the ingoing report, there are stains on the brand new carpet that require removal/ I have received an email from Mitchell, confirming that a carpet cleaner will be arranged.
The last paragraph reads, “Mitchell has confirmed that the tenant will arrange for stain removal and gardening services, and we will accordingly cancel the contractors we had initially assigned. Could you please confirm that expected completion date for all the mentioned tasks?”
There were many other items mentioned and these were all resolved in some way and do not form part of this claim.
On 14 December a follow up email was sent confirming that the garden work had been completed by the landlord’s contractor as no alternative resolution method had been received from the tenant.
The tenants asked the cost and also said, “And you can use your contractor to clean the carpet”.
The tenants gave evidence that they had paid the amount requested for the garden work.
On 15 December the landlord contacted the tenant again about various outstanding matters and also said they would support the tenants if they wished to make a claim with the Tribunal saying, “Our aim is to engage a mediator or adjudicator to facilitate a fair and final decision.”
There was some further correspondence in relation to window damage but nothing further in relation to the carpet was provided to the Tribunal.
An invoice for carpet cleaning and spot stain removal (x7) was provided in the sum of $530.00. The invoice was dated 14 December 2023.
No evidence was provided to show when this was sent to the tenants but both parties suggested that the issue had got missed amongst other matters that were still being resolved at that time.
The tenants did not pay for the carpet cleaning invoice.
The next set of correspondence provided to the Tribunal was from March 2024.
On 5 March the tenants emailed the landlord saying in part, “We see that people have already moved in as well. So if you could please tell the [owner] to pay us our bond back or we will be going to the tenancy tribunal.”
The named landlord was no longer managing the premises following the end of this tenancy. Perhaps as a consequence, the owner was slow to respond to them and instructions were not being received in a timely way.
Eventually, on 18 March 2024, the landlord said, “The [owner] said we can release your full bond, we will send you the bond refund form soon.”
The landlord did send the bond refund form which had been filled out already with the full amount of the bond going to the tenants. The tenants all signed as required and sent it back to the landlord.
Further correspondence from the landlord confirmed that the form had been sent to the Bond Centre and queried whether the bond had been received by the tenants.
After the hearing the landlord provided additional evidence to show that the bond form had indeed been completed by the landlord and sent to the Bond Centre with the full bond to be paid to the tenants.
The landlord emailed on 27 March saying, “The bond has already been refunded to you, will you cancel the mediation? Or do you want mediation?”
The tenants had made an application to Tenancy Services on 12 March 2024 and on receipt of this email they cancelled the mediation.
The tenants gave evidence that they cancelled the mediation on the basis that the owner had agreed to refund the bond in full and they had signed a bond form confirming this and that form had been sent to the bond centre.
When the bond did not arrive, the tenants followed it up only to be told by Tenancy Services that no bond refund form had been received.
It is clear from the emails that the landlord believed that the bond had been refunded in full to the tenants. Their application to the Tribunal confirms that this was its belief.
There is currently no explanation as to why the bond has not been refunded but the suggestion is that the previous property manager is still listed as a landlord (with the Bond Centre) and that may have prevented the bond being paid out to the tenants.
However, it is clear that the tenants were keen to get the matter resolved and have their bond returned to them. They applied to the Tribunal to assist with this.
That application was withdrawn by the tenants on the basis that they were told by the landlord that the bond would be refunded to them in full.
It was understandable that the tenants believed that this meant that all matters were resolved, including any outstanding claim the landlord may have had against the bond.
If this was not the case, the landlord should have advised them accordingly and they could have decided whether to accept a lesser bond refund amount or they could have continued with the scheduled mediation.
From the tenants’ perspective, the owner had instructed that the full bond was to be paid to them. They had signed a refund form to reflect that (which had been completed and sent to them by the landlord) and had been told to expect the full bond in due course.
I find that it was entirely reasonable for the tenants to believe that this resolved all matters between the parties. They withdrew their original claim from the Tribunal on the basis that the bond was to be paid to them in full.
In these circumstances, no compensation for carpet cleaning (or rent arrears detailed above) is ordered.

Should the landlord pay compensation?

The tenants claimed compensation in the sum of $1,000.00 for delays in payment of the bond.
It is unfortunate that the bond issue has taken this long to be resolved but I find that the landlord honestly believed that the full bond had been paid to the tenants in March when the signed form was sent to the bond centre.
There is no evidence that the landlord prevented the bond payment or intentionally held it up after the form was completed in March this year.
The landlord was no longer managing this property and the tenancy had ended months before. The outstanding matters had fallen from view and had not been actively pursued.
I do not find any intentional wrongdoing or intention to mislead on the part of the landlord and no damages can or should be awarded in relation to the delay in paying out the bond. Filing fee
As the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862445 — Tenancy dispute at 155 Maidstone Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862445 — Tenancy dispute at 155 Maidstone Road, Avonhead, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Should the landlord pay compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Should the landlord pay compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions