What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5059976?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 (6521478-001) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5059976?

Cleaning: $1,052.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $476.10 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $359.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $721.60 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $36.35 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5059976?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5059976?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11976405-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5059976?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 (6521478-001) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5059976?

Cleaning: $1,052.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $476.10 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $359.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $721.60 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $36.35 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5059976?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5059976?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11976405-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Longburn Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5059976 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5059976 — net $2,599.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: (general	$476.10		Cleaning: (general
Carpet Cleaning	$1,052.25		Carpet Cleaning
Window repairs	$359.20		Window repairs
Various minor repairs and rubbish removal	$721.60		Various minor repairs and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Refund water rates overpaid		$36.35	Refund water rates overpaid
Total award	$2,636.15	$36.35
Net award	$2,599.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,599.80

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 (6521478-001) immediately apportioned as follows, as calculated in the table below: Ram Naidu and Lea Eunice Naidu: $2,599.80 Zahara Jooda: $1,400.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Jooda attended with her husband as a support person, and was assisted by an Arabic interpreter, Mr Ayyub.
The tenancy of this two-storey, five bedroom property began on 29 November 2023 and ended on 4 June 2024. The tenancy had been for a fixed term of one year. The landlords reluctantly agreed to let the tenants leave early.
The tenant has applied for refund of her bond.
The landlords have applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Water rates
The landlords have calculated the final water invoice and advise that the tenant has overpaid. The landlords confirmed that $36.35 should be refunded to the tenant. The tenant accepted that this amount is correct.

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.
The landlord said that the house had been renovated prior to the tenant moving in and provided entry inspection photos.
The landlord said that they were able to inspect the property the day after the tenancy ended and found that the property had not been properly cleaned and that the carpet smelled terrible and was covered in stains. Cleaning
The landlord produced photos showing that the shower had not been properly cleaned, the rangehood, fridge and freezer were very dirty, the sink and insinkerator were heavily stained and filled with rubbish and plastic, the stove had not been properly cleaned, and the floors had not been mopped.
The landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $476.10 for cleaning.
The tenant said that they did clean the property and provided some photos from the end of the tenancy. These photos were mainly of painting that the tenants arranged to have done without notifying the landlord and were not directed to the areas identified by the landlord.
Having reviewed all of the photos and having heard from the parties I consider that the landlord’s claim is proved. The property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s invoice for cleaning is reasonable for the amount of work required.
I order compensation to the landlord in the amount of $476.10 for cleaning. Carpet cleaning
The landlords said that apart from the master bedroom the carpet had a very bad smell throughout and had multiple stains including pink and brown marks. They said that the smell was particularly strong in the two upstairs rooms where children were sleeping and downstairs in the hallway. The landlords said that they initially opened the windows and tried to deodrise the carpets but that it made no difference to the smell.
The landlords produced photos showing various stains throughout together with photos from the start of the tenancy which show the carpet in good condition.
The landlords said that after their initial cleaning they engaged Centric Cleaning and Remediation to professionally deep clean the carpet and produced an invoice in the amount of $1,052.25. The invoice recorded that: “The carpet is extremely soiled and has multiple stain in 5 bedrooms and hallways upstairs and downstairs, colours red orange and black. Suspected to be soft drink, ink and some faecal... the smell still exists in upstairs rooms, and the... process was repeated again (No extra cost applied)”
The tenant said that there were stains when they moved in (downstairs). They said that when they moved out they cleaned the carpet themselves as one of their children was toilet training. They produced a photo of a rug doctor style carpet cleaner. No invoice or other evidence was provided.
The tenant also said that there had been a leak in the toilet which may have caused the smell.
The landlord denied that there was any staining on the carpet downstairs. They said that there was never any leak in the toilet, only a leak from the tap that they installed at the tenant’s request for washing as the tenant’s children pulled it. This was clean cistern water and could not have smelled.
Having considered all of the evidence I find the landlords’ claim proved. Even if the tenant had used a home carpet cleaner, professional cleaning was required. The photos show extensive staining and the professional carpet cleaners have noted the smell in the narration to their invoice.
I consider that the amount claimed is reasonable and so order accordingly.
The landlords said that even after the commercial cleaning the smell and some stains remained and that the carpet had to be replaced. I consider this claim under the section relating to damage below.

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. Window
The landlords said that there was a window in the lounge with a crack that could not be repaired, and the window below was broken during the tenancy. The landlord produced photos of the windows, which show one window broken, one with a crack, and the curtain rod above the window bent.
The landlords provided photos showing that the windows were intact at the start of the tenancy.
The landlords produced an invoice from Henderson Glass in the amount of $359.20 for glazing two windows.
The tenant said that window broke in the wind and that they immediately told the landlord. They said that the top window broke because the windows were wooden and not stable in the wind.
The landlords said that when the window broke the tenant told them that a bird had flown through it, but they did not think that likely as all of the glass was outside. The tenants responded to say that they put the glass outside.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear. I do not consider that the tenant has proved that they did not carelessly cause the damage. The explanations for the damage were inconsistent and I consider that it is unlikely that such small windows would have broken in the wind.
The landlords’ claim is proved. I order that the tenant pay compensation for repair of the windows. Various small damage/cleaning/rubbish removal
The landlords did various work themselves and summarised these claims together in one document as follows. They seek compensation for their time for materials and labour as follows: a. Repair downstairs double size bedroom door where there were puncture marks (fill, sand, undercoat and paint) $150.00. The tenants accepted this amount. b. Repair upstairs small bedroom wall towards window (plaster and sand, undercoat and paint) $150.00. The tenants said that they painted the property as their kids had drawn on the walls. However I accept that this area had gouges that were not repaired and were just painted over (photo provided). I order compensation as claimed by the landlord. c. Waterblast front porch and rear porch (plaster sand and undercoat) $150.00. The front step was covered in red paint and there were dark grease marks from food being store outside. This claim is proved. d. Three bar stools – damaged beyond repair - $150.00. The bar stools were very badly damaged and the tenants accepted that they were. The landlord has not replaced the bar stools. I do not consider that it is appropriate to award compensation. e. Damaged kitchen shelf repaired - $50.00. The tenants said that they could have done this themselves. However there is no obligation on landlords to allow tenants to re-enter to do repairs. This claim is proved. f. Cleaning/repairing fridge sliders due to build up of grease $50.00. The tenants accepted to this claim. g. Picked up rubbish from outside (3x bar stools, tyre, vehicle used parts, kids toys and various miscellaneous items) and dump at refuse station $104.00. The tenant denied leaving these items but they are clearly visible in the exit photos. The cost claimed is reasonable. I find this claim proved. h. Lock replacement - $67.70 (invoice from Mitre 10). The landlord says that the tenant did not return the keys and that they had to replace the lock. They did the work themselves and claim the cost of materials. The tenant denied receiving any keys. I find it more likely than not that the tenant did receive keys. This claim is proved.
The total amount of the miscellaneous claims proved is $721.60. Carpet
The landlord said that they did not replace the master bedroom carpet but replaced the remaining four bedrooms and the hallway, stairs and stairwell due to the smell.
The landlord produced a quote for carpet replacement in the amount of $8,797.50 but said that they could not afford the amount quoted. They said that they replaced the carpet by going to a wholesaler and obtaining leftover carpet and paid an installer separately. The landlord did not provide an invoice.
As the landlord has not provided an invoice I am not prepared to make any award for the carpet. I note that the carpet was new in 2018 and so substantial depreciation would have been applied in any event (as the IRD Depreciation Schedules estimate that carpet has an estimate life of 8 years). Name suppression and filing fee
Because Ram Naidu, Lea Eunice Naidu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Neither party sought and order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5059976 — net $2,599.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: (general	$476.10		Cleaning: (general
Carpet Cleaning	$1,052.25		Carpet Cleaning
Window repairs	$359.20		Window repairs
Various minor repairs and rubbish removal	$721.60		Various minor repairs and rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Refund water rates overpaid		$36.35	Refund water rates overpaid
Total award	$2,636.15	$36.35
Net award	$2,599.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,599.80

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 (6521478-001) immediately apportioned as follows, as calculated in the table below: Ram Naidu and Lea Eunice Naidu: $2,599.80 Zahara Jooda: $1,400.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Jooda attended with her husband as a support person, and was assisted by an Arabic interpreter, Mr Ayyub.
The tenancy of this two-storey, five bedroom property began on 29 November 2023 and ended on 4 June 2024. The tenancy had been for a fixed term of one year. The landlords reluctantly agreed to let the tenants leave early.
The tenant has applied for refund of her bond.
The landlords have applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Water rates
The landlords have calculated the final water invoice and advise that the tenant has overpaid. The landlords confirmed that $36.35 should be refunded to the tenant. The tenant accepted that this amount is correct.

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.
The landlord said that the house had been renovated prior to the tenant moving in and provided entry inspection photos.
The landlord said that they were able to inspect the property the day after the tenancy ended and found that the property had not been properly cleaned and that the carpet smelled terrible and was covered in stains. Cleaning
The landlord produced photos showing that the shower had not been properly cleaned, the rangehood, fridge and freezer were very dirty, the sink and insinkerator were heavily stained and filled with rubbish and plastic, the stove had not been properly cleaned, and the floors had not been mopped.
The landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $476.10 for cleaning.
The tenant said that they did clean the property and provided some photos from the end of the tenancy. These photos were mainly of painting that the tenants arranged to have done without notifying the landlord and were not directed to the areas identified by the landlord.
Having reviewed all of the photos and having heard from the parties I consider that the landlord’s claim is proved. The property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s invoice for cleaning is reasonable for the amount of work required.
I order compensation to the landlord in the amount of $476.10 for cleaning. Carpet cleaning
The landlords said that apart from the master bedroom the carpet had a very bad smell throughout and had multiple stains including pink and brown marks. They said that the smell was particularly strong in the two upstairs rooms where children were sleeping and downstairs in the hallway. The landlords said that they initially opened the windows and tried to deodrise the carpets but that it made no difference to the smell.
The landlords produced photos showing various stains throughout together with photos from the start of the tenancy which show the carpet in good condition.
The landlords said that after their initial cleaning they engaged Centric Cleaning and Remediation to professionally deep clean the carpet and produced an invoice in the amount of $1,052.25. The invoice recorded that: “The carpet is extremely soiled and has multiple stain in 5 bedrooms and hallways upstairs and downstairs, colours red orange and black. Suspected to be soft drink, ink and some faecal... the smell still exists in upstairs rooms, and the... process was repeated again (No extra cost applied)”
The tenant said that there were stains when they moved in (downstairs). They said that when they moved out they cleaned the carpet themselves as one of their children was toilet training. They produced a photo of a rug doctor style carpet cleaner. No invoice or other evidence was provided.
The tenant also said that there had been a leak in the toilet which may have caused the smell.
The landlord denied that there was any staining on the carpet downstairs. They said that there was never any leak in the toilet, only a leak from the tap that they installed at the tenant’s request for washing as the tenant’s children pulled it. This was clean cistern water and could not have smelled.
Having considered all of the evidence I find the landlords’ claim proved. Even if the tenant had used a home carpet cleaner, professional cleaning was required. The photos show extensive staining and the professional carpet cleaners have noted the smell in the narration to their invoice.
I consider that the amount claimed is reasonable and so order accordingly.
The landlords said that even after the commercial cleaning the smell and some stains remained and that the carpet had to be replaced. I consider this claim under the section relating to damage below.

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. Window
The landlords said that there was a window in the lounge with a crack that could not be repaired, and the window below was broken during the tenancy. The landlord produced photos of the windows, which show one window broken, one with a crack, and the curtain rod above the window bent.
The landlords provided photos showing that the windows were intact at the start of the tenancy.
The landlords produced an invoice from Henderson Glass in the amount of $359.20 for glazing two windows.
The tenant said that window broke in the wind and that they immediately told the landlord. They said that the top window broke because the windows were wooden and not stable in the wind.
The landlords said that when the window broke the tenant told them that a bird had flown through it, but they did not think that likely as all of the glass was outside. The tenants responded to say that they put the glass outside.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear. I do not consider that the tenant has proved that they did not carelessly cause the damage. The explanations for the damage were inconsistent and I consider that it is unlikely that such small windows would have broken in the wind.
The landlords’ claim is proved. I order that the tenant pay compensation for repair of the windows. Various small damage/cleaning/rubbish removal
The landlords did various work themselves and summarised these claims together in one document as follows. They seek compensation for their time for materials and labour as follows: a. Repair downstairs double size bedroom door where there were puncture marks (fill, sand, undercoat and paint) $150.00. The tenants accepted this amount. b. Repair upstairs small bedroom wall towards window (plaster and sand, undercoat and paint) $150.00. The tenants said that they painted the property as their kids had drawn on the walls. However I accept that this area had gouges that were not repaired and were just painted over (photo provided). I order compensation as claimed by the landlord. c. Waterblast front porch and rear porch (plaster sand and undercoat) $150.00. The front step was covered in red paint and there were dark grease marks from food being store outside. This claim is proved. d. Three bar stools – damaged beyond repair - $150.00. The bar stools were very badly damaged and the tenants accepted that they were. The landlord has not replaced the bar stools. I do not consider that it is appropriate to award compensation. e. Damaged kitchen shelf repaired - $50.00. The tenants said that they could have done this themselves. However there is no obligation on landlords to allow tenants to re-enter to do repairs. This claim is proved. f. Cleaning/repairing fridge sliders due to build up of grease $50.00. The tenants accepted to this claim. g. Picked up rubbish from outside (3x bar stools, tyre, vehicle used parts, kids toys and various miscellaneous items) and dump at refuse station $104.00. The tenant denied leaving these items but they are clearly visible in the exit photos. The cost claimed is reasonable. I find this claim proved. h. Lock replacement - $67.70 (invoice from Mitre 10). The landlord says that the tenant did not return the keys and that they had to replace the lock. They did the work themselves and claim the cost of materials. The tenant denied receiving any keys. I find it more likely than not that the tenant did receive keys. This claim is proved.
The total amount of the miscellaneous claims proved is $721.60. Carpet
The landlord said that they did not replace the master bedroom carpet but replaced the remaining four bedrooms and the hallway, stairs and stairwell due to the smell.
The landlord produced a quote for carpet replacement in the amount of $8,797.50 but said that they could not afford the amount quoted. They said that they replaced the carpet by going to a wholesaler and obtaining leftover carpet and paid an installer separately. The landlord did not provide an invoice.
As the landlord has not provided an invoice I am not prepared to make any award for the carpet. I note that the carpet was new in 2018 and so substantial depreciation would have been applied in any event (as the IRD Depreciation Schedules estimate that carpet has an estimate life of 8 years). Name suppression and filing fee
Because Ram Naidu, Lea Eunice Naidu has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Neither party sought and order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5059976 — Cleanliness at 20 Longburn Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5059976 — Cleanliness at 20 Longburn Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Frequently asked questions