What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4867941?

The tribunal order states: Julie Marie McMurtrie must pay Results Realty Limited as Agent for Malcolm &

How much money was awarded in case 4867941?

Carpet (Excess: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $204.13 awarded to landlord; Glass Door (Excess: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $847.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,204.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867941?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10665819-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4867941?

The tribunal order states: Julie Marie McMurtrie must pay Results Realty Limited as Agent for Malcolm &

How much money was awarded in case 4867941?

Carpet (Excess: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Garage Remote: $204.13 awarded to landlord; Glass Door (Excess: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $847.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,204.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867941?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10665819-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27A Shackleton Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4867941 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4867941 — net $2,936.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 March 2024	$847.14	Rent arrears to 13 March 2024
Glass door (excess	$500.00	Glass door (excess
Rubbish removal	$1,204.63	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$210.00	Cleaning
Garage remote	$204.13	Garage remote
Kitchen vinyl (excess	$500.00	Kitchen vinyl (excess
Carpet (excess	$500.00	Carpet (excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,936.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,936.34

Order

Julie Marie McMurtrie must pay Results Realty Limited as Agent for Malcolm & Sue Bradley as trustee of the Bradley Family Trust $2,936.34 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Tasker represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond in the sum of $1,050 has been paid to the landlord. Rent
The tenancy ended on 13 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy as awarded. The tenant suggested that because she paid rent in advance at the start of the tenancy, she did not need to pay rent for the final weeks of the tenancy. Whilst it is true that the rent was in credit for much of the tenancy, the landlord’s rent statement shows that the credit was used and then arrears accrued. The tenant could not point to any error in the landlord’s rent statement. The Tenant’s Other Obligations
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.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Rubbish
The tenant accepted the claim for the cost of removing rubbish from the premises at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $1,204.63. Cleaning
The tenant disputed the claim for cleaning costs. She had vacated the premises by the end of the tenancy and her daughter came to the premises and removed some belongings and rubbish and put some remaining rubbish in the conservatory. The tenant produced some photographs of the premises taken by her daughter after she had cleaned the premises.
The landlord produced an outgoing report with photographs taken after the tenant’s daughter has cleaned and after the landlord’s cleaners had done some cleaning. Other cleaners came and did some more cleaning after that.
The daughter’s photographs are very limited. They don’t show, for example the bathroom and the quality of the photographs does not enable me to determine the cleanliness of some of the surfaces shown. They do show that the carpet had been vacuumed.
Ms Tasker said that she viewed the premises before the landlord’s cleaners came the first time and after the daughter had cleaned, and there were areas that needed cleaning including the bathroom.
All in all, the evidence from both sides is less than ideal. But I accept that some additional cleaning was needed after the daughter cleaned the premises. Given the condition that the premises were in after the tenant vacated, there would have been a substantial amount of cleaning needed to bring them to a reasonably clean standard. I’m sure the daughter did a decent job in the circumstances, but as she said to the property managers, she did not do a deep clean. I note that a “deep” clean is not the relevant standard, but from the photographs taken before there was any tidying or cleaning, I am satisfied that a thorough clean was needed.
I have therefore awarded the cost of the first lot of cleaning. I have not awarded the cost of the second lot. The landlord’s photographs taken after that cleaning, show the premises to be reasonably clean. Garage Remote
The tenant accepted that the garage remote went missing during the tenancy. The invoice that the landlord relies on refers as well to the installation of a “key disconnect” to the garage door. Ms Tasker was unable to explain why the tenant should be liable for the cost of that.
I have therefore deducted that cost, half the labour charge and GST from the invoice total and awarded the balance in the sum of $204.13. Damage Carpet
The tenant accepted responsibility for extensive damage to the carpet in the conservatory but denied responsibility for any other damage. She accepted that the carpet was stained in the lounge but said that it could been cleaned to remove the stains.
The tenant also accepted that there was staining in one of the bedrooms, but she said the stains could have been removed by professional cleaning.
The landlord’s photographs showed stains in other places as well.
I can’t say with any degree of certainty that professional cleaning would have removed the stains. The landlords obviously decided that it wouldn’t. In any case, cleaning the carpet and stain removal would obviously have come at a cost. Probably several hundreds of dollars judging from the photographs. Quite possibly, it would not have been successful.
When I consider that the carpet in the conservatory needed to be replaced, I conclude that whatever the landlord did, the total cost would likely exceed $500 which is what the landlord claims as the insurance excess. In reaching that conclusion, I have considered betterment. The carpet was in good condition when the tenancy started and there was no sign of excessive wear to it at the end of this five-year tenancy. Even after a deduction for betterment, I find that the claim is reasonable, and I have awarded it in full. Glass Door
The tenant accepted responsibility for the crack in the sliding glass door. The landlord did not produce an invoice for the repair because the insurer dealt with it, but I am satisfied that it would have exceeded the $500 excess that is claimed. I have therefore awarded the claim in full. Vinyl
The landlord’s photographs show two lines of marks on the kitchen vinyl in front of where the fridge was. The tenant said they were not damage and could have been cleaned off. The landlords say it is damage and the vinyl has been replaced. I can’t accept the tenant’s submission. If the marks could have been cleaned off, I would have expected that to have been done. There appears to be no other reason for the landlord to replace the vinyl.
The landlord did not produce an invoice for the new vinyl, but I am satisfied that even after allowing for betterment, the cost would exceed the $500 excess. I have therefore awarded the claim in full. Filing Fee
The landlord has been largely successful and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4867941 — net $2,936.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 March 2024	$847.14	Rent arrears to 13 March 2024
Glass door (excess	$500.00	Glass door (excess
Rubbish removal	$1,204.63	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$210.00	Cleaning
Garage remote	$204.13	Garage remote
Kitchen vinyl (excess	$500.00	Kitchen vinyl (excess
Carpet (excess	$500.00	Carpet (excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,936.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,936.34

Order

Julie Marie McMurtrie must pay Results Realty Limited as Agent for Malcolm & Sue Bradley as trustee of the Bradley Family Trust $2,936.34 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Tasker represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The bond in the sum of $1,050 has been paid to the landlord. Rent
The tenancy ended on 13 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy as awarded. The tenant suggested that because she paid rent in advance at the start of the tenancy, she did not need to pay rent for the final weeks of the tenancy. Whilst it is true that the rent was in credit for much of the tenancy, the landlord’s rent statement shows that the credit was used and then arrears accrued. The tenant could not point to any error in the landlord’s rent statement. The Tenant’s Other Obligations
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.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Rubbish
The tenant accepted the claim for the cost of removing rubbish from the premises at the end of the tenancy in the sum of $1,204.63. Cleaning
The tenant disputed the claim for cleaning costs. She had vacated the premises by the end of the tenancy and her daughter came to the premises and removed some belongings and rubbish and put some remaining rubbish in the conservatory. The tenant produced some photographs of the premises taken by her daughter after she had cleaned the premises.
The landlord produced an outgoing report with photographs taken after the tenant’s daughter has cleaned and after the landlord’s cleaners had done some cleaning. Other cleaners came and did some more cleaning after that.
The daughter’s photographs are very limited. They don’t show, for example the bathroom and the quality of the photographs does not enable me to determine the cleanliness of some of the surfaces shown. They do show that the carpet had been vacuumed.
Ms Tasker said that she viewed the premises before the landlord’s cleaners came the first time and after the daughter had cleaned, and there were areas that needed cleaning including the bathroom.
All in all, the evidence from both sides is less than ideal. But I accept that some additional cleaning was needed after the daughter cleaned the premises. Given the condition that the premises were in after the tenant vacated, there would have been a substantial amount of cleaning needed to bring them to a reasonably clean standard. I’m sure the daughter did a decent job in the circumstances, but as she said to the property managers, she did not do a deep clean. I note that a “deep” clean is not the relevant standard, but from the photographs taken before there was any tidying or cleaning, I am satisfied that a thorough clean was needed.
I have therefore awarded the cost of the first lot of cleaning. I have not awarded the cost of the second lot. The landlord’s photographs taken after that cleaning, show the premises to be reasonably clean. Garage Remote
The tenant accepted that the garage remote went missing during the tenancy. The invoice that the landlord relies on refers as well to the installation of a “key disconnect” to the garage door. Ms Tasker was unable to explain why the tenant should be liable for the cost of that.
I have therefore deducted that cost, half the labour charge and GST from the invoice total and awarded the balance in the sum of $204.13. Damage Carpet
The tenant accepted responsibility for extensive damage to the carpet in the conservatory but denied responsibility for any other damage. She accepted that the carpet was stained in the lounge but said that it could been cleaned to remove the stains.
The tenant also accepted that there was staining in one of the bedrooms, but she said the stains could have been removed by professional cleaning.
The landlord’s photographs showed stains in other places as well.
I can’t say with any degree of certainty that professional cleaning would have removed the stains. The landlords obviously decided that it wouldn’t. In any case, cleaning the carpet and stain removal would obviously have come at a cost. Probably several hundreds of dollars judging from the photographs. Quite possibly, it would not have been successful.
When I consider that the carpet in the conservatory needed to be replaced, I conclude that whatever the landlord did, the total cost would likely exceed $500 which is what the landlord claims as the insurance excess. In reaching that conclusion, I have considered betterment. The carpet was in good condition when the tenancy started and there was no sign of excessive wear to it at the end of this five-year tenancy. Even after a deduction for betterment, I find that the claim is reasonable, and I have awarded it in full. Glass Door
The tenant accepted responsibility for the crack in the sliding glass door. The landlord did not produce an invoice for the repair because the insurer dealt with it, but I am satisfied that it would have exceeded the $500 excess that is claimed. I have therefore awarded the claim in full. Vinyl
The landlord’s photographs show two lines of marks on the kitchen vinyl in front of where the fridge was. The tenant said they were not damage and could have been cleaned off. The landlords say it is damage and the vinyl has been replaced. I can’t accept the tenant’s submission. If the marks could have been cleaned off, I would have expected that to have been done. There appears to be no other reason for the landlord to replace the vinyl.
The landlord did not produce an invoice for the new vinyl, but I am satisfied that even after allowing for betterment, the cost would exceed the $500 excess. I have therefore awarded the claim in full. Filing Fee
The landlord has been largely successful and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867941 — Rent arrears at 27A Shackleton Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867941 — Rent arrears at 27A Shackleton Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions