What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5032088?

The tribunal order states: Maximus Joseph Ruffell is to pay Oxygen Limited $307.34 from the bond, as

How much money was awarded in case 5032088?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $107.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5032088?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5032088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11209210-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5032088?

The tribunal order states: Maximus Joseph Ruffell is to pay Oxygen Limited $307.34 from the bond, as

How much money was awarded in case 5032088?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $107.34 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5032088?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5032088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11209210-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

119 Volga Street, Island Bay, Wellington 6023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5032088 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5032088 — net $307.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal (contribution	$107.34	Rubbish removal (contribution
Carpet Cleaning (contribution	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning (contribution
Net award	$307.34
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$307.34

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond, and the landlord has applied for compensation and a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord has claimed the following amounts from the tenant following the end of the tenancy: a. Rubbish removal of $322.00. b. Carpet cleaning of $475.00. c. Bedroom wall cleaning of $460.00. Rubbish removal

The landlord claims that there was rubbish left outside at the property, including boxes, a hose and general rubbish. In addition, there were incorrect items left in the recycling bin. Photographs have been provided.

The tenant admits that he incorrectly included some items in the recycling bin, but that the hose was there at the start of the property, and a significant amount of rubbish was left by painters who were working at the property (and left in haste). The landlord does not dispute that this is a possibility.

Accordingly, I find that the tenant did not remove all rubbish when he left items incorrectly in the recycling bin, but that the landlord has not proven the tenant’s responsibility for the remaining required rubbish removal.

The total invoice provided is for $322.00, and I have accordingly ordered that the tenant pay one third of the total amount, being $107.34.

The amount ordered is proved. Carpet cleaning

The landlord claims carpet cleaning costs due to excessive animal fur in the carpet. The landlord provided photographs of the amount of fur on their clothes when opening the curtains at the property, although I note that the invoice supporting the costs sought does not mention the curtains.

The tenant submits that they did not own an animal at the property, but that the cat from the previous tenancy would come into the premises through open windows (and alleges that the landlord was aware of this). The tenant claims that the landlord is seeking to pass on costs to him that were primarily for preparing the property for sale rather than what is expected at the end of the tenancy. The tenant also says that he did have the carpet cleaned, however, was unable to provide an invoice for this.

I can see from the photos that there was excessive animal fur at the property following the end of the tenancy. However, the photographs also appear to show that the property, and particularly the carpet, was reasonably clean and tidy save for the animal fur.

The total invoice provided is for $475.00. I have determined that it is reasonable that the tenant should pay a contribution of $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the carpet.

The amount ordered is proved. Wall cleaning (bedroom two and three)

The landlord has claimed for the cost to clean the walls in two of the bedrooms, specifically bedroom two and three. The landlord says bedroom two had marks and bedroom three had significant mould on the walls, both caused during the tenancy. The landlord has provided photographs in support.

The tenant says that the property had marks on the wall prior to the tenancy commencing, and that he did not cause the mould. The property is surrounded by trees and was prone to mould throughout the tenancy. The property was painted after the tenancy ended to be marketed, and the tenant claims that wiping the walls down would have occurred as part of prepping for sale, and that the landlord is simply trying to recover the cost of this.

The landlord has sought the cost of $460.00 in total and relies on a text message for “cleaning before the painting begins”, where a painter states that it will cost about $200 plus GST per room.

The tenant has raised whether this is a reliable source for the cost, and I agree with him. There is no evidence that the cleaning work was actually carried out, and the estimate does not provide sufficient detail to be certain on what is to be cleaned, or even that the painter understood the work being asked to be quoted.

The amount is not proved, and accordingly the claim for wall cleaning is dismissed. R Harvey-Lane 13 December 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5032088 — net $307.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal (contribution	$107.34	Rubbish removal (contribution
Carpet Cleaning (contribution	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning (contribution
Net award	$307.34
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$307.34

Order

Maximus Joseph Ruffell is to pay Oxygen Limited $307.34 from the bond, as calculated in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6264473-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Oxygen Limited: $307.34 Maximus Joseph Ruffell: $2,292.66
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond, and the landlord has applied for compensation and a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has claimed the following amounts from the tenant following the end of the tenancy: a. Rubbish removal of $322.00. b. Carpet cleaning of $475.00. c. Bedroom wall cleaning of $460.00. Rubbish removal
The landlord claims that there was rubbish left outside at the property, including boxes, a hose and general rubbish. In addition, there were incorrect items left in the recycling bin. Photographs have been provided.
The tenant admits that he incorrectly included some items in the recycling bin, but that the hose was there at the start of the property, and a significant amount of rubbish was left by painters who were working at the property (and left in haste). The landlord does not dispute that this is a possibility.
Accordingly, I find that the tenant did not remove all rubbish when he left items incorrectly in the recycling bin, but that the landlord has not proven the tenant’s responsibility for the remaining required rubbish removal.
The total invoice provided is for $322.00, and I have accordingly ordered that the tenant pay one third of the total amount, being $107.34.
The amount ordered is proved. Carpet cleaning
The landlord claims carpet cleaning costs due to excessive animal fur in the carpet. The landlord provided photographs of the amount of fur on their clothes when opening the curtains at the property, although I note that the invoice supporting the costs sought does not mention the curtains.
The tenant submits that they did not own an animal at the property, but that the cat from the previous tenancy would come into the premises through open windows (and alleges that the landlord was aware of this). The tenant claims that the landlord is seeking to pass on costs to him that were primarily for preparing the property for sale rather than what is expected at the end of the tenancy. The tenant also says that he did have the carpet cleaned, however, was unable to provide an invoice for this.
I can see from the photos that there was excessive animal fur at the property following the end of the tenancy. However, the photographs also appear to show that the property, and particularly the carpet, was reasonably clean and tidy save for the animal fur.
The total invoice provided is for $475.00. I have determined that it is reasonable that the tenant should pay a contribution of $200.00 towards the cost of cleaning the carpet.
The amount ordered is proved. Wall cleaning (bedroom two and three)
The landlord has claimed for the cost to clean the walls in two of the bedrooms, specifically bedroom two and three. The landlord says bedroom two had marks and bedroom three had significant mould on the walls, both caused during the tenancy. The landlord has provided photographs in support.
The tenant says that the property had marks on the wall prior to the tenancy commencing, and that he did not cause the mould. The property is surrounded by trees and was prone to mould throughout the tenancy. The property was painted after the tenancy ended to be marketed, and the tenant claims that wiping the walls down would have occurred as part of prepping for sale, and that the landlord is simply trying to recover the cost of this.
The landlord has sought the cost of $460.00 in total and relies on a text message for “cleaning before the painting begins”, where a painter states that it will cost about $200 plus GST per room.
The tenant has raised whether this is a reliable source for the cost, and I agree with him. There is no evidence that the cleaning work was actually carried out, and the estimate does not provide sufficient detail to be certain on what is to be cleaned, or even that the painter understood the work being asked to be quoted.
The amount is not proved, and accordingly the claim for wall cleaning is dismissed. R Harvey-Lane 13 December 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 5032088 — Cleanliness at 119 Volga Street, Island Bay, Wellington 6023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5032088 — Cleanliness at 119 Volga Street, Island Bay, Wellington 6023

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