What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5008648?

The tribunal order states: Rishita Kantamneni and Hemanth Kumar-Potluri to pay Yin Fei Tso and Wai

How much money was awarded in case 5008648?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5008648?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5008648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11042398-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5008648?

The tribunal order states: Rishita Kantamneni and Hemanth Kumar-Potluri to pay Yin Fei Tso and Wai

How much money was awarded in case 5008648?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5008648?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5008648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11042398-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

88 Park Road, Miramar, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5008648 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5008648 — net $427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and garden work (compensation	$300.00	Lawns and garden work (compensation
Cleaning (compensation	$100.00	Cleaning (compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$427.00
Bond	$1,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$427.00

Rishita Kantamneni and Hemanth Kumar-Potluri to pay Yin Fei Tso and Wai Man Tso $427.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 (3179061-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Yin Fei Tso and Wai Man Tso: $427.00 Rishita Kantamneni and Hemanth Kumar- Potluri: $1,013.00

The application for the cost of repairing a motor mower is dismissed.

By consent, the tenants will collect their electrical extension cord from the premises at 3.00pm on Sunday 10 November 2024. If they fail to do so the landlord may dispose of the cord as they see fit.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today which I held by phone with the assistance of an interpreter.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, a disposal of goods order, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants 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 (RTA).

The landlord alleges that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and did not do the lawns or leave the gardens reasonably tidy.

The landlord produced photos and a quotation for the garden and cleaning work. The amount claimed is $960.00.

The tenant Mr Kumar-Potluri gave evidence that the photos the landlord produced in evidence were taken before he and the other tenant did further cleaning work. He accepted that he was liable for lawn mowing costs, but not for cleaning costs although he said there were some places he could not reach to remove cobwebs.

A tenant is only required leave the premises (including outside) reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, not clean to a ‘motel standard’ or to a level where a new tenancy can immediately commence. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.

The tenant said that the premises were not provided reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy, although that is not the test.

The landlord’s claim is based on a quotation only. The Tribunal can accept quotes, but when the quotes relate to matters such as cleaning and garden work, the Tribunal is cautious.

The landlord confirmed that the work quoted for had not been done yet (the tenancy ended 2 months ago); no new tenancy has started; and the premises have not been sold: they remain empty.

I have decided to award the landlord compensation only for this work, not the quoted price since the work has not been done and 2 months have passed since the tenancy ended.

I award the landlord $300.00 for the lawns/garden work and $100.00 for the cleaning. The tenant accepted that the lawns had to be done and the photos the landlord produced show that some garden work was also required. The tenant accepted that some, but very little, cleaning was required. Motor mower repair

The landlord has claimed the repair cost of a motor mower, provided for the tenant to do the lawns.

The landlord said he was unable to start the mower as it was very dirty underneath. He produced an invoice for the repair cost.

Tenants are only liable for careless or intentional damage.

The invoice produced in evidence states ‘Blades and air filter ok. Added fresh filter. Cleaned. Test run’.

I do not find that the tenants damaged the mower. The invoice suggest that the repair was more routine maintenance, a landlord responsibility. I dismiss this claim for lack of proof. Disposal of goods

The landlord sought a disposal of goods order for an electrical extension cord left behind by the tenants. Mr Kumar-Potluri said he believed the landlord had stolen the cord.

The landlord said the cord was still at the premises.

The parties agreed that the tenants will collect the cord at 3.00pm on Sunday 10 November 2024 from the premises.

The Tribunal expects the parties to co-operate with the arrangement they have agreed to.

If the tenants fail to collect the electrical cord at the agreed time, the landlord may dispose of it as they see fit. Result

The tenants will pay the landlord $427.00 from the bond which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the party successful application.

The bond will be split between the parties - $427.00 to the landlord and $1,013.00 to the landlord. Name suppression

Both parties applied for name suppression. I make no suppression orders in this case as neither party has been wholly or mostly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5008648 — net $427.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and garden work (compensation	$300.00	Lawns and garden work (compensation
Cleaning (compensation	$100.00	Cleaning (compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$427.00
Bond	$1,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$427.00

Order

Rishita Kantamneni and Hemanth Kumar-Potluri to pay Yin Fei Tso and Wai Man Tso $427.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,440.00 (3179061-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Yin Fei Tso and Wai Man Tso: $427.00 Rishita Kantamneni and Hemanth Kumar- Potluri: $1,013.00
The application for the cost of repairing a motor mower is dismissed.
By consent, the tenants will collect their electrical extension cord from the premises at 3.00pm on Sunday 10 November 2024. If they fail to do so the landlord may dispose of the cord as they see fit.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today which I held by phone with the assistance of an interpreter.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, a disposal of goods order, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants 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 (RTA).
The landlord alleges that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and did not do the lawns or leave the gardens reasonably tidy.
The landlord produced photos and a quotation for the garden and cleaning work. The amount claimed is $960.00.
The tenant Mr Kumar-Potluri gave evidence that the photos the landlord produced in evidence were taken before he and the other tenant did further cleaning work. He accepted that he was liable for lawn mowing costs, but not for cleaning costs although he said there were some places he could not reach to remove cobwebs.
A tenant is only required leave the premises (including outside) reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, not clean to a ‘motel standard’ or to a level where a new tenancy can immediately commence. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
The tenant said that the premises were not provided reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy, although that is not the test.
The landlord’s claim is based on a quotation only. The Tribunal can accept quotes, but when the quotes relate to matters such as cleaning and garden work, the Tribunal is cautious.
The landlord confirmed that the work quoted for had not been done yet (the tenancy ended 2 months ago); no new tenancy has started; and the premises have not been sold: they remain empty.
I have decided to award the landlord compensation only for this work, not the quoted price since the work has not been done and 2 months have passed since the tenancy ended.
I award the landlord $300.00 for the lawns/garden work and $100.00 for the cleaning. The tenant accepted that the lawns had to be done and the photos the landlord produced show that some garden work was also required. The tenant accepted that some, but very little, cleaning was required. Motor mower repair
The landlord has claimed the repair cost of a motor mower, provided for the tenant to do the lawns.
The landlord said he was unable to start the mower as it was very dirty underneath. He produced an invoice for the repair cost.
Tenants are only liable for careless or intentional damage.
The invoice produced in evidence states ‘Blades and air filter ok. Added fresh filter. Cleaned. Test run’.
I do not find that the tenants damaged the mower. The invoice suggest that the repair was more routine maintenance, a landlord responsibility. I dismiss this claim for lack of proof. Disposal of goods
The landlord sought a disposal of goods order for an electrical extension cord left behind by the tenants. Mr Kumar-Potluri said he believed the landlord had stolen the cord.
The landlord said the cord was still at the premises.
The parties agreed that the tenants will collect the cord at 3.00pm on Sunday 10 November 2024 from the premises.
The Tribunal expects the parties to co-operate with the arrangement they have agreed to.
If the tenants fail to collect the electrical cord at the agreed time, the landlord may dispose of it as they see fit. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $427.00 from the bond which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the party successful application.
The bond will be split between the parties - $427.00 to the landlord and $1,013.00 to the landlord. Name suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression. I make no suppression orders in this case as neither party has been wholly or mostly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5008648 — Cleanliness at 88 Park Road, Miramar, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5008648 — Cleanliness at 88 Park Road, Miramar, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions