What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871060?

The tribunal order states: Himanshu Khurana and Neeti Jaggi to pay Accommodation Centre Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 4871060?

Cleaning: $524.40 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $197.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871060?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10767145-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871060?

The tribunal order states: Himanshu Khurana and Neeti Jaggi to pay Accommodation Centre Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 4871060?

Cleaning: $524.40 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $197.89 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871060?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10767145-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 105A Flockton Street, Mairehau, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4871060 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4871060 — net $742.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$524.40	Cleaning
Window repairs	$197.89	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$742.73
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$742.73

Order

Himanshu Khurana and Neeti Jaggi to pay Accommodation Centre Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For R & K Brangwin $742.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (3250839-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Accommodation Centre Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For R & K Brangwin: $742.73 Himanshu Khurana and Neeti Jaggi: $777.27

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.
The tenant submitted a cross-application claiming full refund of the bond and raising issues with Healthy Homes Compliance and/or maintenance issues relating to mould. At the hearing, the tenants confirmed that they were not seeking compensation for those alleged issues, rather they were raised to provide context to the tenant’s response to the cleaning claim.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. It seeks reimbursement of an invoice for cleaning of $708.40. The landlord provided outgoing photographs which appear to show a grimy residue on walls, floors and ceilings and mouldy patches on curtains.
The tenants claim that there was a mould/condensation issue with the property, which made mould inevitable. They also said that tenants shouldn’t be expected to clean walls or ceilings. There is no requirement for any particular surface to be cleaned. The test is whether the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. In this case they were not, and a contributing feature was the grimy walls and ceilings.
The issue for me to consider is whether there was something defective with the property that made the mould and any associated grime inevitable, such that the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy could be considered reasonable.
Many houses produce some mould during wet seasons and is usually eradicated by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. There are two main possible causes for mould; the state of the premises or the way it is lived in (such as lack of ventilation).
Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault. The premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal way, without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be done, then the problem of mould falls to the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property. If the tenant fails to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is provided, then it is considered the tenant’s issue.
The fact that some mould is in a house is not enough to show that it is not in a reasonable state of repair; and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive (Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011).
In order to avoid some liability for cleaning at the end of the tenancy, the tenant would have to prove that it is more likely than not that there is an inherent issue with the property leading to condensation and excessive moisture.
The tenant provided evidence that they raised issued of condensation, mould and ventilation with the landlord throughout the tenancy. They say that they properly ventilated the premises, used a dehumidifier and heated the property in winter.
The landlord provided evidence of Healthy Home Compliance, including insulation. It also provided inspection records of other tenancies at the property (before and after this tenancy). There was no issue with mould or moisture during those tenancies.
The tenant’s evidence did not persuade me that there should be a reduction in the cleaning costs because of any inherent defect with the property causing mould or condensation.
I have deducted the replacement shower curtain from the amount claimed. The curtain was in a condition I would it expect it to be after 4 years of use. It is also reasonable to expect the landlord to replace a shower curtain at the end of a 4- year tenancy.
I also deducted the carpet cleaning claim as the photographs provided by the landlord did not establish that the carpets required commercial cleaning or stain removal.
I award $524.40 for cleaning costs.

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.
A windowpane in the veranda area was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant said that the break/crack was not evident during the tenancy, but the landlord provided a photograph from the last of the tenancy clearly showing the damage.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4871060 — net $742.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$524.40	Cleaning
Window repairs	$197.89	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$742.73
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$742.73

Order

Himanshu Khurana and Neeti Jaggi to pay Accommodation Centre Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For R & K Brangwin $742.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (3250839-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Accommodation Centre Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For R & K Brangwin: $742.73 Himanshu Khurana and Neeti Jaggi: $777.27

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.
The tenant submitted a cross-application claiming full refund of the bond and raising issues with Healthy Homes Compliance and/or maintenance issues relating to mould. At the hearing, the tenants confirmed that they were not seeking compensation for those alleged issues, rather they were raised to provide context to the tenant’s response to the cleaning claim.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. It seeks reimbursement of an invoice for cleaning of $708.40. The landlord provided outgoing photographs which appear to show a grimy residue on walls, floors and ceilings and mouldy patches on curtains.
The tenants claim that there was a mould/condensation issue with the property, which made mould inevitable. They also said that tenants shouldn’t be expected to clean walls or ceilings. There is no requirement for any particular surface to be cleaned. The test is whether the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. In this case they were not, and a contributing feature was the grimy walls and ceilings.
The issue for me to consider is whether there was something defective with the property that made the mould and any associated grime inevitable, such that the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy could be considered reasonable.
Many houses produce some mould during wet seasons and is usually eradicated by wiping with an appropriate cleaner. There are two main possible causes for mould; the state of the premises or the way it is lived in (such as lack of ventilation).
Where a property has an inherent problem or a leak causing mould, the landlord has the responsibility to remedy the fault. The premises must be able to be used and lived in, in the normal way, without excessive mould developing. If this cannot be done, then the problem of mould falls to the landlord to remedy under their obligations to maintain the property. If the tenant fails to ventilate and heat appropriately when heating and ventilation is provided, then it is considered the tenant’s issue.
The fact that some mould is in a house is not enough to show that it is not in a reasonable state of repair; and the opinion of unqualified persons is often not persuasive (Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere, CIV-2011-090-00056, 27 April 2011).
In order to avoid some liability for cleaning at the end of the tenancy, the tenant would have to prove that it is more likely than not that there is an inherent issue with the property leading to condensation and excessive moisture.
The tenant provided evidence that they raised issued of condensation, mould and ventilation with the landlord throughout the tenancy. They say that they properly ventilated the premises, used a dehumidifier and heated the property in winter.
The landlord provided evidence of Healthy Home Compliance, including insulation. It also provided inspection records of other tenancies at the property (before and after this tenancy). There was no issue with mould or moisture during those tenancies.
The tenant’s evidence did not persuade me that there should be a reduction in the cleaning costs because of any inherent defect with the property causing mould or condensation.
I have deducted the replacement shower curtain from the amount claimed. The curtain was in a condition I would it expect it to be after 4 years of use. It is also reasonable to expect the landlord to replace a shower curtain at the end of a 4- year tenancy.
I also deducted the carpet cleaning claim as the photographs provided by the landlord did not establish that the carpets required commercial cleaning or stain removal.
I award $524.40 for cleaning costs.

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.
A windowpane in the veranda area was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant said that the break/crack was not evident during the tenancy, but the landlord provided a photograph from the last of the tenancy clearly showing the damage.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871060 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 105A Flockton Street, Mairehau,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871060 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 105A Flockton Street, Mairehau,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant 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 tenant 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