What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5098814?

The tribunal order states: Kaveshan Damien Karunakaram must pay Paul Keung $159.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5098814?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $38.80 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $283.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098814?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12077350-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5098814?

The tribunal order states: Kaveshan Damien Karunakaram must pay Paul Keung $159.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5098814?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $38.80 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $283.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098814?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12077350-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 5, 2 Cannon Hill Crescent, Mount Pleasant, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5098814 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098814 — net $159.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Mattress clean	$60.00	Mattress clean
Room cleaning	$38.80	Room cleaning
Drycleaning bedding	$283.20	Drycleaning bedding
Couch cleaning	$300.00	Couch cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$159.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$159.00

Order

Kaveshan Damien Karunakaram must pay Paul Keung $159.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Tribunal declines to consider the landlord’s claim, made at the hearing, for the cost of reupholstering a couch.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $550.00 to Paul Keung immediately.

Reasons

Attendance

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I note that after the hearing ended at
15pm, a court staff member informed the Tribunal that the tenant was waiting outside the hearing room. The tenant said that he had been waiting since 2pm.
The Tribunal registrar called the case at 2pm and found only the landlord waiting in the waiting area. The hearing did not begin until 2.10pm in case the tenant was running late. When the registrar went out to call the case again at
10pm, still only the landlord was in the waiting area.
If the tenant is unhappy with the outcome of these applications, he has the right to apply for a rehearing. Any such application will be dealt with in the usual way. Claims
The tenant’s application is for repayment of his bond.
The landlord’s application is for compensation for cleaning costs including cleaning the tenant’s room, mattress and bedding, management fees and payment of the bond. At the hearing, the landlord additionally claimed compensation for damage to a couch. Background
The premises consist of a six-bedroom house run as a boarding house. The house is up-market and is normally occupied by professional people. The tenant had exclusive use of a bedroom with an ensuite bathroom and shared use of common areas including living areas.
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant must pay $65 per week, in addition to rent, for house expenses, including for cleaning of the common areas. The tenant is responsible for keeping his room clean.
The tenancy began in February 2023 and ended in November 2024.
The landlord’s evidence was that there had been problems with the tenant’s use of the premises and especially with his continual use of a couch for eating his meals. There were complaints about the tenant causing stains to the couch which was continually having to be cleaned.
In an email from the landlord’s agent to the tenant dated 26 November 2024, the agent refers to cleaning costs including for the sofa. It states that the couch needs to be reupholstered. The total claim is said to be $1,010 and the landlord will bear the cost of reupholstering the couch. Discussion and Decision
The only photographs provided by the landlord are of a couch showing marks in various places. There were no photographs of the tenant’s room or of the mattress or bedding in the room.
There are invoices for cleaning the couch in the sum of $300, the mattress in the sum of $60, bedding in the sum of $283.20 and the room in the sum of $103.50 (of which the landlord claims $38.80). There is also an invoice from the landlord’s agent in the sum of $200 for a room inspection, room turnover and preparing for the Tribunal hearing.
In a case like this the Tribunal normally expects to see photographs showing all parts of the premises and items in the premises for which claims are made. Where the tenant attends and disputes the claims, such evidence is usually essential for the landlord to prove the claims.
In this case, the tenant has not attended the hearing and so the Tribunal can accept evidence from the landlord as to the condition of the relevant items.
After hearing evidence from the landlord and reading the emails between the parties, I am satisfied that the couch and the other items were left in a condition that was not reasonably clean, that they needed to be professionally cleaned, and that the cost of cleaning them is reasonable.
Plainly it was the tenant’s obligation to leave the room, mattress and bedding reasonably clean. But, as the tenant has pointed out to the landlord in an email, others were using the lounge and the couch and so attributing the condition of the couch to the tenant alone is problematic.
The landlord answered that with evidence that the tenant was seen habitually sitting in the same two places on the couch, where the staining occurred, eating food despite being repeatedly asked not to do so. He said that other tenants did not use the couch in that way. He said that the couch was cleaned several times during the tenancy and that only one cost of cleaning is being claimed from the tenant.
I find as well that the cleaning required is beyond what would be reasonably anticipated and so it is not covered by the tenant’s contribution to the cost of cleaning the common areas. I find that the intention was that the contribution would cover routine cleaning.
I accept the landlord’s evidence and find that the condition of the couch and the cost of cleaning can be attributed to the tenant’s failure to keep the premises reasonably clean.
I have therefore awarded the cleaning costs to the landlord as claimed.
The claim for the agent’s costs is dismissed. The Tribunal does not normally accept such claims. Agent’s costs are generally considered to be between the landlord and the agent and are part of managing the premises.
I decline to deal with the claim for the cost of reupholstering the couch. It was not included in the application and there is no evidence that the tenant was put on notice that the claim would be made at the hearing. It would be unfair to the tenant for the Tribunal to consider it in those circumstances.
The landlord has been largely successful and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5098814 — net $159.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Mattress clean	$60.00	Mattress clean
Room cleaning	$38.80	Room cleaning
Drycleaning bedding	$283.20	Drycleaning bedding
Couch cleaning	$300.00	Couch cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$159.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$159.00

Order

Kaveshan Damien Karunakaram must pay Paul Keung $159.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Tribunal declines to consider the landlord’s claim, made at the hearing, for the cost of reupholstering a couch.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $550.00 to Paul Keung immediately.

Reasons

Attendance

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I note that after the hearing ended at
15pm, a court staff member informed the Tribunal that the tenant was waiting outside the hearing room. The tenant said that he had been waiting since 2pm.
The Tribunal registrar called the case at 2pm and found only the landlord waiting in the waiting area. The hearing did not begin until 2.10pm in case the tenant was running late. When the registrar went out to call the case again at
10pm, still only the landlord was in the waiting area.
If the tenant is unhappy with the outcome of these applications, he has the right to apply for a rehearing. Any such application will be dealt with in the usual way. Claims
The tenant’s application is for repayment of his bond.
The landlord’s application is for compensation for cleaning costs including cleaning the tenant’s room, mattress and bedding, management fees and payment of the bond. At the hearing, the landlord additionally claimed compensation for damage to a couch. Background
The premises consist of a six-bedroom house run as a boarding house. The house is up-market and is normally occupied by professional people. The tenant had exclusive use of a bedroom with an ensuite bathroom and shared use of common areas including living areas.
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant must pay $65 per week, in addition to rent, for house expenses, including for cleaning of the common areas. The tenant is responsible for keeping his room clean.
The tenancy began in February 2023 and ended in November 2024.
The landlord’s evidence was that there had been problems with the tenant’s use of the premises and especially with his continual use of a couch for eating his meals. There were complaints about the tenant causing stains to the couch which was continually having to be cleaned.
In an email from the landlord’s agent to the tenant dated 26 November 2024, the agent refers to cleaning costs including for the sofa. It states that the couch needs to be reupholstered. The total claim is said to be $1,010 and the landlord will bear the cost of reupholstering the couch. Discussion and Decision
The only photographs provided by the landlord are of a couch showing marks in various places. There were no photographs of the tenant’s room or of the mattress or bedding in the room.
There are invoices for cleaning the couch in the sum of $300, the mattress in the sum of $60, bedding in the sum of $283.20 and the room in the sum of $103.50 (of which the landlord claims $38.80). There is also an invoice from the landlord’s agent in the sum of $200 for a room inspection, room turnover and preparing for the Tribunal hearing.
In a case like this the Tribunal normally expects to see photographs showing all parts of the premises and items in the premises for which claims are made. Where the tenant attends and disputes the claims, such evidence is usually essential for the landlord to prove the claims.
In this case, the tenant has not attended the hearing and so the Tribunal can accept evidence from the landlord as to the condition of the relevant items.
After hearing evidence from the landlord and reading the emails between the parties, I am satisfied that the couch and the other items were left in a condition that was not reasonably clean, that they needed to be professionally cleaned, and that the cost of cleaning them is reasonable.
Plainly it was the tenant’s obligation to leave the room, mattress and bedding reasonably clean. But, as the tenant has pointed out to the landlord in an email, others were using the lounge and the couch and so attributing the condition of the couch to the tenant alone is problematic.
The landlord answered that with evidence that the tenant was seen habitually sitting in the same two places on the couch, where the staining occurred, eating food despite being repeatedly asked not to do so. He said that other tenants did not use the couch in that way. He said that the couch was cleaned several times during the tenancy and that only one cost of cleaning is being claimed from the tenant.
I find as well that the cleaning required is beyond what would be reasonably anticipated and so it is not covered by the tenant’s contribution to the cost of cleaning the common areas. I find that the intention was that the contribution would cover routine cleaning.
I accept the landlord’s evidence and find that the condition of the couch and the cost of cleaning can be attributed to the tenant’s failure to keep the premises reasonably clean.
I have therefore awarded the cleaning costs to the landlord as claimed.
The claim for the agent’s costs is dismissed. The Tribunal does not normally accept such claims. Agent’s costs are generally considered to be between the landlord and the agent and are part of managing the premises.
I decline to deal with the claim for the cost of reupholstering the couch. It was not included in the application and there is no evidence that the tenant was put on notice that the claim would be made at the hearing. It would be unfair to the tenant for the Tribunal to consider it in those circumstances.
The landlord has been largely successful and so I have awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098814 — Cleanliness at Room 5, 2 Cannon Hill Crescent, Mount Pleasant,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098814 — Cleanliness at Room 5, 2 Cannon Hill Crescent, Mount Pleasant,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions