What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5003148?

The tribunal order states: Keith Barton must pay Layton Holdings Limited (trading as Quinovic Properties

How much money was awarded in case 5003148?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $255.87 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bed And Curtains: $539.92 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpets: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $741.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5003148?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5003148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11100202-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5003148?

The tribunal order states: Keith Barton must pay Layton Holdings Limited (trading as Quinovic Properties

How much money was awarded in case 5003148?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $255.87 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bed And Curtains: $539.92 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpets: $1,050.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $741.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5003148?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5003148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11100202-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 4, 227 Worcester Street, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5003148 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Room 4, 227 Worcester Street, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5003148 — 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 5003148 — net $1,853.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$255.87	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$120.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$741.17	Rubbish removal
Replace carpets	$1,050.00	Replace carpets
Replace bed and curtains	$539.92	Replace bed and curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,853.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,853.96

Claims and awards for application 5003148 — net $1,853.96 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $255.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $741.17
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace carpets

Amount: $1,050.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace carpets

Replace bed and curtains

Amount: $539.92
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace bed and curtains

Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Rubbish Removal

Order

Keith Barton must pay Layton Holdings Limited (trading as Quinovic Properties Merivale) and Ashok Sudhakaran $1,853.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $880.00 (6077633-010) to Layton Holdings Limited and Ashok Sudhakaran immediately.
The landlord’s other claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Taylor represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy is a boarding house tenancy. Mr Barton’s tenancy ended on 21 August 2024 when the landlord gave notice due to his behaviour which appears to be the result of him being very drunk. Mr Barton said, and I fully accept his evidence, that the behaviour was not usual for him and resulted from difficult personal circumstances that he was experiencing at the time. Mr Barton is now living in a rest home.
The landlord claims the cost to clean the premises, remove rubbish and goods from the premises, to replace the bed, curtains, and the carpets in the room which were soiled by urine and the like.
Mr Barton accepts the claims and he apologised to the landlord for the event(s) that lead to them.
The amounts claimed have been established by the production of invoices and a quote. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing the amount ordered to replace the carpets and curtains. 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 age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Ms Taylor said that the curtains were approximately 5 years old, and the carpets were approximately 4 years old. Both are expected to last approximately 8 years before requiring replacement. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed for purchasing the curtains by 60% and the amount claimed to replace the carpets by 40%. The bed was replaced with a second-hand bed. I therefore do not consider a reduction of the amount claimed to account for depreciation or betterment is necessary.
The claim for the costs paid to a contractor to assist the landlord to remove Mr Barton from the premises and replace his clothes (which were apparently covered in vomit) is dismissed. The appropriate course for a landlord when a tenant has not vacated the premises after the tenancy has lawfully ended is to obtain a possession order from the Tribunal and, if necessary, have it enforced through the District Court processes. It would be inequitable to require Mr Barton to pay the costs of the landlord attempting to enforce the eviction notice in an unlawful manner. The claim for the cost to replace Mr Barton’s clothes is not something that relates to any right or obligation that arises out of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The claim is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
The landlord has been mostly successful in his claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application 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 5003148 — net $1,853.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$255.87	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$120.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$741.17	Rubbish removal
Replace carpets	$1,050.00	Replace carpets
Replace bed and curtains	$539.92	Replace bed and curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,853.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,853.96

Claims and awards for application 5003148 — net $1,853.96 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $255.87
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $741.17
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Replace carpets

Amount: $1,050.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace carpets

Replace bed and curtains

Amount: $539.92
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace bed and curtains

Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Rubbish Removal

Order

Keith Barton must pay Layton Holdings Limited (trading as Quinovic Properties Merivale) and Ashok Sudhakaran $1,853.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $880.00 (6077633-010) to Layton Holdings Limited and Ashok Sudhakaran immediately.
The landlord’s other claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Taylor represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy is a boarding house tenancy. Mr Barton’s tenancy ended on 21 August 2024 when the landlord gave notice due to his behaviour which appears to be the result of him being very drunk. Mr Barton said, and I fully accept his evidence, that the behaviour was not usual for him and resulted from difficult personal circumstances that he was experiencing at the time. Mr Barton is now living in a rest home.
The landlord claims the cost to clean the premises, remove rubbish and goods from the premises, to replace the bed, curtains, and the carpets in the room which were soiled by urine and the like.
Mr Barton accepts the claims and he apologised to the landlord for the event(s) that lead to them.
The amounts claimed have been established by the production of invoices and a quote. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing the amount ordered to replace the carpets and curtains. 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 age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Ms Taylor said that the curtains were approximately 5 years old, and the carpets were approximately 4 years old. Both are expected to last approximately 8 years before requiring replacement. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed for purchasing the curtains by 60% and the amount claimed to replace the carpets by 40%. The bed was replaced with a second-hand bed. I therefore do not consider a reduction of the amount claimed to account for depreciation or betterment is necessary.
The claim for the costs paid to a contractor to assist the landlord to remove Mr Barton from the premises and replace his clothes (which were apparently covered in vomit) is dismissed. The appropriate course for a landlord when a tenant has not vacated the premises after the tenancy has lawfully ended is to obtain a possession order from the Tribunal and, if necessary, have it enforced through the District Court processes. It would be inequitable to require Mr Barton to pay the costs of the landlord attempting to enforce the eviction notice in an unlawful manner. The claim for the cost to replace Mr Barton’s clothes is not something that relates to any right or obligation that arises out of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The claim is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
The landlord has been mostly successful in his claims and is therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5003148 — Cleanliness at Room 4, 227 Worcester Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5003148 — Cleanliness at Room 4, 227 Worcester Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions