What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4915953?

The tribunal order states: Jason John Densley and Sheree Jane Densley must pay Xclusive Property

How much money was awarded in case 4915953?

Cleaning: $590.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $910.14 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $885.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $929.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915953?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10647916-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4915953?

The tribunal order states: Jason John Densley and Sheree Jane Densley must pay Xclusive Property

How much money was awarded in case 4915953?

Cleaning: $590.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $910.14 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $885.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $929.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915953?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10647916-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Westbrook Avenue, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4915953 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

23 Westbrook Avenue, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4915953 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4915953 — net $1,641.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to vacate date	$885.86	Rent arrears to vacate date
Lawns and Garden work	$125.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal: removal of stickers, bin cleaning, repair to curtain rail, replace missing garage remote	$929.21	Rubbish removal: removal of stickers, bin cleaning, repair to curtain rail, replace missing garage remote
Carpet Cleaning: initial clean and stain removal attempt	$590.00	Carpet Cleaning: initial clean and stain removal attempt
Carpet Cleaning: stain removal and repair to damaged hard floor in kitchen	$910.14	Carpet Cleaning: stain removal and repair to damaged hard floor in kitchen
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Repairs: bedroom wall and bathroom wall damage (1/3 of invoice total	$287.00	Repairs: bedroom wall and bathroom wall damage (1/3 of invoice total
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,641.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,641.65

Claims and awards for application 4915953 — net $1,641.65 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to vacate date

Amount: $885.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to vacate date

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $125.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Rubbish removal: removal of stickers, bin cleaning, repair to curtain rail, replace missing garage remote

Amount: $929.21
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: removal of stickers, bin cleaning, repair to curtain rail, replace missing garage remote

Carpet Cleaning: initial clean and stain removal attempt

Amount: $590.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: initial clean and stain removal attempt

Carpet Cleaning: stain removal and repair to damaged hard floor in kitchen

Amount: $910.14

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Jason John Densley and Sheree Jane Densley must pay Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited As Agent For Cambell And Viki Mcclimont $1,641.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,796.00 (6486785-001) to Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited As Agent For Cambell And Viki Mcclimont immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Champ and Ms Morgan attended for the landlord. The tenant attended by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 17 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The rent had been increased from $699.00 per week to $720.00 per week from 19 April 2024. The tenants had continued to pay the old rent level until their last rent payment.
The tenant gave evidence that she was unaware that the rent level had not been increased to cover the new rent amount and this had not been brought to her attention by the landlord.
The rent summary shows that the amount due at the end of the tenancy was $885.86.
The amount ordered is proved.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The photographs and invoices provided by the landlord show that significant work had to be completed to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state and to dispose of the rubbish and items left behind by the tenants.
The tenant accepted that she had not had time to arrange for the cleaning and rubbish removal to be completed but disputed the amounts claimed and the extent of the work completed.
An invoice for $125.00 was provided for lawns and edges, removal of dog faeces from the garden and related dumping.
An invoice for $929.21 included significant amounts of rubbish and abandoned household effects which had to be removed from the premises and dumped; council bins being emptied and cleaned; removal of stickers placed throughout the property; reattachment of curtains that had fallen loose and the reattachment of the rod.
An invoice for $690.00 included an entire house clean including the oven and three cleaners working on the property.
The tenant considered the amount unreasonable. Although it would have been useful if an hourly rate and number of hours spent had been included on the invoice, the total amount is consistent with what the Tribunal sees for similar properties.
The landlord gave evidence that there were stains on the carpet which could not be removed with standard cleaning.
The landlord arranged for a specialist to professionally clean the carpet and to remove the stubborn stains.
The tenant disputed the cost of this invoice ($590.00) and did not consider she should be liable as the cleaning attempt had not been entirely successful.
Although the stain removal process was not entirely successful, it is not unusual or unacceptable to attempt to remove a stain before applying to the insurance company for replacement of the carpet. It is frequently in the interests of the tenant for the landlord to take this step and, in this case, the stain removal process seems to have been successful in relation to some of the stains referred to by the landlord.
This stain removal was unsuccessful with regard to at least one stain and the owner then approached their insurance company with a view to making an insurance claim.
Due to the high excess costs likely to arise from the claim, the owner engaged another company, at the suggestion of their insurance company, to attempt to remove the remaining stain (and repair a small hole in the carpet and repair an area of hard flooring in the kitchen referred to below).
The tenant accepted liability for this successful carpet stain removal.
The tenant did not return one garage remote control.
The tenant said that she had contacted the landlord on 7 June to advise that she had located the missing remote control. As this was three weeks after the tenancy ended, the landlord had already replaced the remote for the next occupant.
Although the tenant considers the amounts excessive, having regard to the evidence provided by the landlord, I consider the invoices acceptable, and the amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The house was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy.
During the tenancy the carpet was damaged in a small area. The tenant accepted responsibility for the costs of repairing this damage.
The landlord provided photographs and evidence to show that the tenants had kept their Guinea pig cage or litter tray on the kitchen floor and that the cage or litter tray was left at the end of the tenancy. The photographs showed the cage/tray still in this position after the tenants had vacated the property.
The tenant could not explain the damage to the floor but acknowledged that this was where the cage/litter tray was kept.
The damage to the hard floor and the carpet was included in the second stain treatment invoice which totalled $910.14.
There was damage to the bathroom wall which the tenant acknowledge was likely caused by the removal of a command adhesive hook. The tenant did not consider she should be liable for this as the landlord had instructed the tenants to use this type of hook.
The tenant accepted that she had placed a large sticker behind the bed area in the master bedroom (as a headboard) which caused damage to the wall when it was removed. The tenant accepted responsibility for the repainting of this wall.
The cost for repairing and painting the bedroom and bathroom was included in an invoice for general painting and the landlord is claiming one third of that total cost being $287.00.
The damage to the kitchen floor and the bathroom and bedroom walls is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited As Agent For Cambell And Viki Mcclimont has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4915953 — net $1,641.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to vacate date	$885.86	Rent arrears to vacate date
Lawns and Garden work	$125.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal: removal of stickers, bin cleaning, repair to curtain rail, replace missing garage remote	$929.21	Rubbish removal: removal of stickers, bin cleaning, repair to curtain rail, replace missing garage remote
Carpet Cleaning: initial clean and stain removal attempt	$590.00	Carpet Cleaning: initial clean and stain removal attempt
Carpet Cleaning: stain removal and repair to damaged hard floor in kitchen	$910.14	Carpet Cleaning: stain removal and repair to damaged hard floor in kitchen
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Repairs: bedroom wall and bathroom wall damage (1/3 of invoice total	$287.00	Repairs: bedroom wall and bathroom wall damage (1/3 of invoice total
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,641.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,641.65

Claims and awards for application 4915953 — net $1,641.65 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to vacate date

Amount: $885.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to vacate date

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $125.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Rubbish removal: removal of stickers, bin cleaning, repair to curtain rail, replace missing garage remote

Amount: $929.21
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: removal of stickers, bin cleaning, repair to curtain rail, replace missing garage remote

Carpet Cleaning: initial clean and stain removal attempt

Amount: $590.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: initial clean and stain removal attempt

Carpet Cleaning: stain removal and repair to damaged hard floor in kitchen

Amount: $910.14

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Jason John Densley and Sheree Jane Densley must pay Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited As Agent For Cambell And Viki Mcclimont $1,641.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,796.00 (6486785-001) to Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited As Agent For Cambell And Viki Mcclimont immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Champ and Ms Morgan attended for the landlord. The tenant attended by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 17 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The rent had been increased from $699.00 per week to $720.00 per week from 19 April 2024. The tenants had continued to pay the old rent level until their last rent payment.
The tenant gave evidence that she was unaware that the rent level had not been increased to cover the new rent amount and this had not been brought to her attention by the landlord.
The rent summary shows that the amount due at the end of the tenancy was $885.86.
The amount ordered is proved.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The photographs and invoices provided by the landlord show that significant work had to be completed to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state and to dispose of the rubbish and items left behind by the tenants.
The tenant accepted that she had not had time to arrange for the cleaning and rubbish removal to be completed but disputed the amounts claimed and the extent of the work completed.
An invoice for $125.00 was provided for lawns and edges, removal of dog faeces from the garden and related dumping.
An invoice for $929.21 included significant amounts of rubbish and abandoned household effects which had to be removed from the premises and dumped; council bins being emptied and cleaned; removal of stickers placed throughout the property; reattachment of curtains that had fallen loose and the reattachment of the rod.
An invoice for $690.00 included an entire house clean including the oven and three cleaners working on the property.
The tenant considered the amount unreasonable. Although it would have been useful if an hourly rate and number of hours spent had been included on the invoice, the total amount is consistent with what the Tribunal sees for similar properties.
The landlord gave evidence that there were stains on the carpet which could not be removed with standard cleaning.
The landlord arranged for a specialist to professionally clean the carpet and to remove the stubborn stains.
The tenant disputed the cost of this invoice ($590.00) and did not consider she should be liable as the cleaning attempt had not been entirely successful.
Although the stain removal process was not entirely successful, it is not unusual or unacceptable to attempt to remove a stain before applying to the insurance company for replacement of the carpet. It is frequently in the interests of the tenant for the landlord to take this step and, in this case, the stain removal process seems to have been successful in relation to some of the stains referred to by the landlord.
This stain removal was unsuccessful with regard to at least one stain and the owner then approached their insurance company with a view to making an insurance claim.
Due to the high excess costs likely to arise from the claim, the owner engaged another company, at the suggestion of their insurance company, to attempt to remove the remaining stain (and repair a small hole in the carpet and repair an area of hard flooring in the kitchen referred to below).
The tenant accepted liability for this successful carpet stain removal.
The tenant did not return one garage remote control.
The tenant said that she had contacted the landlord on 7 June to advise that she had located the missing remote control. As this was three weeks after the tenancy ended, the landlord had already replaced the remote for the next occupant.
Although the tenant considers the amounts excessive, having regard to the evidence provided by the landlord, I consider the invoices acceptable, and the amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The house was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy.
During the tenancy the carpet was damaged in a small area. The tenant accepted responsibility for the costs of repairing this damage.
The landlord provided photographs and evidence to show that the tenants had kept their Guinea pig cage or litter tray on the kitchen floor and that the cage or litter tray was left at the end of the tenancy. The photographs showed the cage/tray still in this position after the tenants had vacated the property.
The tenant could not explain the damage to the floor but acknowledged that this was where the cage/litter tray was kept.
The damage to the hard floor and the carpet was included in the second stain treatment invoice which totalled $910.14.
There was damage to the bathroom wall which the tenant acknowledge was likely caused by the removal of a command adhesive hook. The tenant did not consider she should be liable for this as the landlord had instructed the tenants to use this type of hook.
The tenant accepted that she had placed a large sticker behind the bed area in the master bedroom (as a headboard) which caused damage to the wall when it was removed. The tenant accepted responsibility for the repainting of this wall.
The cost for repairing and painting the bedroom and bathroom was included in an invoice for general painting and the landlord is claiming one third of that total cost being $287.00.
The damage to the kitchen floor and the bathroom and bedroom walls is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited As Agent For Cambell And Viki Mcclimont has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915953 — Cleanliness at 23 Westbrook Avenue, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915953 — Cleanliness at 23 Westbrook Avenue, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

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?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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