What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5017448?

The tribunal order states: Luka Obradovic to pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Brett And

How much money was awarded in case 5017448?

Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017448?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11452172-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5017448?

The tribunal order states: Luka Obradovic to pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Brett And

How much money was awarded in case 5017448?

Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017448?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11452172-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35A Notley Street, Westmere, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5017448 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017448 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$718.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

Luka Obradovic to pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Brett And Louisa Mcgregor $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $718.75 (5958502-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Brett And Louisa Mcgregor: $200.00 Luka Obradovic: $518.75

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord seeks compensation and a refund of the bond.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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 (RTA).
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy for the following reasons: a. The garden was overgrown and not weeded; and b. The carpet in one of the bedrooms smelt.
I deal with each issue in turn below. Garden
The landlord submitted photographs of the garden taken at the beginning of the tenancy on 11 March 2021. These photographs show the garden in a very clean and tidy condition. There are no weeds, the hedges are trimmed and there is very little foliage on the ground.
The landlord submitted photographs of the garden taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show the presence of some weeds, particularly around the paving and river stones of various garden paths. There is also some foliage on the ground, and the garden appears fuller and more grown in general.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Erve Landscape for $718.75 and seeks compensation for this amount.
The tenant gave evidence that they always maintained the hedges and garden area by the stairs. The tenant claims that the state of the garden was never raised as an issue by the landlord during routine inspections. This tenancy was approximately two and a half years long.
The tenant gave evidence that as a result of severe weather events experienced in Auckland in early 2023, a tree fell onto the house near one of the garden paths. The tenant claims this made completing garden maintenance in that particular area a safety hazard. The tenant claims that it took some weeks for the tree to be removed and that weeds built up during this time. The tenant does not believe they should be responsible for weeding this area of the garden.
The tenant gave further evidence that the that the contractors who removed the tree left a lot of woodchips and debris in the garden. The tenant also claims that as a result of the severe weather events in early 2023, branches fell and there was a general disbursement of debris around the garden.
The landlord accepts that the state of the garden was never raised as an issue with the tenant during inspections. The landlord could not provide an answer as to why this was but claims that nonetheless, the garden was not left in the same state at the end of the tenancy as it was at the beginning.
A tenant is required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This includes the lawns and garden. The Tribunal assesses claims for cleaning and garden maintenance on an objective basis, not on the subjective views of either party. A tenant is not required to leave the premises in the same condition they were in at the beginning of the tenancy, only in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Based on the photographs submitted by the landlord, I find that some parts of the garden were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. In particular, there is an accumulation of weeds around the paving and river stones of the garden paths. The landlord has proven their claim in relation to this part of the garden only, not in relation to the garden as a whole.
I have considered the tenant’s submission that they should not be responsible for clearing the weeds in the area of the garden where the tree fell however, I do not agree. The tree was removed some time in early 2023 and this tenancy ended on 2 September 2023, which is quite some time later. The weeds shown around the paving and river stones at the end of the tenancy would have built up over this period of time, not just the time during which the tree fell. In all of the circumstances, I consider it is reasonable to expect that the tenant should have attended to weeding this part of the garden at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant is not responsible for compensating the landlord the entire cost of the invoice for $718.75, only a portion that fairly reflects the work completed to remove the weeds around the paving and river stones. I consider $200.00 to be a reasonable amount to reflect this work.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for garden maintenance is granted for $200.00.
The amount ordered is proved. Carpet cleaning
The landlord claims that the carpet in one of the bedrooms smelt like urine at the end of the tenancy and needed to be professionally cleaned.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $165.00.
The tenant gave evidence that the carpet in the bedroom smelt odd at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant submitted an email sent to the landlord complaining about the smell of the carpet on 3 March 2021. The tenant claims the carpet was shampooed, and the smell mostly went away.
The tenant gave evidence that they did not keep any pets.
The tenant claims the smelly carpet is a pre-existing condition.
The landlord points to the fact that the carpet smell was not noted during any inspections, only at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord claims the tenant must have caused it.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced that the tenant is responsible for the smelly carpet. The issue was raised by the tenant with the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord did not submit any evidence of the tenant keeping a pet or doing anything else that might cause the carpet to smell. I accept the tenant’s submission that they most likely became accustomed to the smell over time and did not raise it again after the carpet was shampooed at the beginning of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am persuaded that the smelly carpet was most likely a pre-existing condition and not something the tenant should reasonably be expected to pay for.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order that the tenant reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017448 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$718.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

Luka Obradovic to pay Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Brett And Louisa Mcgregor $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $718.75 (5958502-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Village Estate Agents Limited As Agent For Brett And Louisa Mcgregor: $200.00 Luka Obradovic: $518.75

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord seeks compensation and a refund of the bond.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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 (RTA).
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy for the following reasons: a. The garden was overgrown and not weeded; and b. The carpet in one of the bedrooms smelt.
I deal with each issue in turn below. Garden
The landlord submitted photographs of the garden taken at the beginning of the tenancy on 11 March 2021. These photographs show the garden in a very clean and tidy condition. There are no weeds, the hedges are trimmed and there is very little foliage on the ground.
The landlord submitted photographs of the garden taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show the presence of some weeds, particularly around the paving and river stones of various garden paths. There is also some foliage on the ground, and the garden appears fuller and more grown in general.
The landlord submitted an invoice from Erve Landscape for $718.75 and seeks compensation for this amount.
The tenant gave evidence that they always maintained the hedges and garden area by the stairs. The tenant claims that the state of the garden was never raised as an issue by the landlord during routine inspections. This tenancy was approximately two and a half years long.
The tenant gave evidence that as a result of severe weather events experienced in Auckland in early 2023, a tree fell onto the house near one of the garden paths. The tenant claims this made completing garden maintenance in that particular area a safety hazard. The tenant claims that it took some weeks for the tree to be removed and that weeds built up during this time. The tenant does not believe they should be responsible for weeding this area of the garden.
The tenant gave further evidence that the that the contractors who removed the tree left a lot of woodchips and debris in the garden. The tenant also claims that as a result of the severe weather events in early 2023, branches fell and there was a general disbursement of debris around the garden.
The landlord accepts that the state of the garden was never raised as an issue with the tenant during inspections. The landlord could not provide an answer as to why this was but claims that nonetheless, the garden was not left in the same state at the end of the tenancy as it was at the beginning.
A tenant is required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This includes the lawns and garden. The Tribunal assesses claims for cleaning and garden maintenance on an objective basis, not on the subjective views of either party. A tenant is not required to leave the premises in the same condition they were in at the beginning of the tenancy, only in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Based on the photographs submitted by the landlord, I find that some parts of the garden were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. In particular, there is an accumulation of weeds around the paving and river stones of the garden paths. The landlord has proven their claim in relation to this part of the garden only, not in relation to the garden as a whole.
I have considered the tenant’s submission that they should not be responsible for clearing the weeds in the area of the garden where the tree fell however, I do not agree. The tree was removed some time in early 2023 and this tenancy ended on 2 September 2023, which is quite some time later. The weeds shown around the paving and river stones at the end of the tenancy would have built up over this period of time, not just the time during which the tree fell. In all of the circumstances, I consider it is reasonable to expect that the tenant should have attended to weeding this part of the garden at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant is not responsible for compensating the landlord the entire cost of the invoice for $718.75, only a portion that fairly reflects the work completed to remove the weeds around the paving and river stones. I consider $200.00 to be a reasonable amount to reflect this work.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for garden maintenance is granted for $200.00.
The amount ordered is proved. Carpet cleaning
The landlord claims that the carpet in one of the bedrooms smelt like urine at the end of the tenancy and needed to be professionally cleaned.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $165.00.
The tenant gave evidence that the carpet in the bedroom smelt odd at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant submitted an email sent to the landlord complaining about the smell of the carpet on 3 March 2021. The tenant claims the carpet was shampooed, and the smell mostly went away.
The tenant gave evidence that they did not keep any pets.
The tenant claims the smelly carpet is a pre-existing condition.
The landlord points to the fact that the carpet smell was not noted during any inspections, only at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, the landlord claims the tenant must have caused it.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced that the tenant is responsible for the smelly carpet. The issue was raised by the tenant with the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord did not submit any evidence of the tenant keeping a pet or doing anything else that might cause the carpet to smell. I accept the tenant’s submission that they most likely became accustomed to the smell over time and did not raise it again after the carpet was shampooed at the beginning of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I am persuaded that the smelly carpet was most likely a pre-existing condition and not something the tenant should reasonably be expected to pay for.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order that the tenant reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017448 — Tenancy dispute at 35A Notley Street, Westmere, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017448 — Tenancy dispute at 35A Notley Street, Westmere, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions