What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5120879?

The tribunal order states: Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Kenny And Grace Lim

How much money was awarded in case 5120879?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120879?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11549334-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5120879?

The tribunal order states: Inspire Property Management Limited As Agent For Kenny And Grace Lim

How much money was awarded in case 5120879?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120879?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120879?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11549334-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Kutukutu Street, Takanini, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120879 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing.

The landlord seeks rent arrears to 16 January 2025 due to the tenant unilaterally withdrawing from the fixed term tenancy which is due to end in December 2025. The landlord also seeks costs to readvertise the premises. New tenants were found and took over the tenancy on 23 January 2025.

The tenant seeks a full refund of their bond paid of $2,760.00 and one week’s rent in advance of $690.00. The tenant never moved into the premises complaining that the carpet in the premises was ingrained with pet hair which could not be removed.

I find on the evidence that the premises were not provided by the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I accept the evidence from the tenant’s professional carpet cleaners that: During our service, our technician observed a significant amount of pet hair deeply embedded in the carpet fibres, particularly in the corners of the house. Despite thorough cleaning, including professional carpet washing, it was noted that the pet hair remained lodged within the fibres and could not be fully removed. Our technician also advised that due to the depth of the pet hair within the carpet, it is likely to continue surfacing with regular vacuuming. We confirm that despite our best efforts, complete removal of the pet hair was not achievable due to its deep entanglement within the carpet...

There was no contrary professional evidence from the landlord that the premises were provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, without the irremovable pet hair identified by the tenant’s carpet cleaners.

However, I also consider that the tenant had unreasonably refused the landlord’s offer to have their professional carpet cleaners to re-clean the premises. I consider the breach by the landlord to be capable of remedy and a reasonable tenant ought to have allowed the landlord one opportunity to remedy the failure to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

Weighing the parties’ respective breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I consider that substantive justice and merits of the case lies with the landlord being able to retain one week’s rent. All remaining claims by the landlord should be dismissed in the circumstances.

This finding recognises my conclusion that the landlord has first breached their obligation in terms of cleanliness and secondly, the tenant also acted unreasonably in not allowing the landlord to remedy the failure.

The upshot is that the tenant were justified in not moving into the premises but their failure to allow the landlord to remedy the breach meant that a week’s rent may be retained by the landlord.

The unlodged bond should now be returned to the tenant forthwith.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing.

The upshot is that the tenant were justified in not moving into the premises but their failure to allow the landlord to remedy the breach meant that a week’s rent may be retained by the landlord.

The unlodged bond should now be returned to the tenant forthwith.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120879 — Rent arrears at 21 Kutukutu Street, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120879 — Rent arrears at 21 Kutukutu Street, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions