What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5136251?

The tribunal order states: Hindan.K Limited Hindan Khan to pay Saing Heng Lorth $1,548.25 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5136251?

Cleaning: $563.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $361.65 awarded to landlord; Replace Appliances: $136.10 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136251?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11766978-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5136251?

The tribunal order states: Hindan.K Limited Hindan Khan to pay Saing Heng Lorth $1,548.25 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5136251?

Cleaning: $563.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $361.65 awarded to landlord; Replace Appliances: $136.10 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5136251?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5136251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11766978-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 6D, 15 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5136251 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5136251 — net $1,548.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$563.50	Cleaning
Repairs	$361.65	Repairs
Replace appliances	$136.10	Replace appliances
Replace carpet	$460.00	Replace carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,548.25
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,548.25

Order

Hindan.K Limited Hindan Khan to pay Saing Heng Lorth $1,548.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (5906818-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Saing Heng Lorth: $1,548.25 Hindan.K Limited Hindan Khan: $811.75

Reasons

Stephanie Lorth attended the hearing for the landlord.
Hindan Khan attended the hearing and was represented by Yeob Jeong during the hearing.
This is a cross-application for unit 6D/15 Whittaker Place Grafton.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied to have their bond refunded.

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 “RTA”).
The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. In particular the bathroom and kitchen were not clean, and the carpets needed cleaning. The tenant accepted this but suggested the landlord could have given the tenant a further opportunity to bring their contractor back to have another attempt at cleaning the premises.
After the tenancy has ended it is the landlord’s prerogative to decide whether they ask the tenant to have another attempt at cleaning, or whether they make their own arrangements to clean the apartment. In the circumstances I consider the cleaning bill for the apartment including carpets to be reasonable, and it is awarded in full.
The landlord seeks compensation to replace a number of appliances that they say were damaged during the tenancy. Photographs were provided that show the microwave and toaster to be rusty and significantly damaged at the end of the tenancy, when they were not at the beginning of the tenancy. The frame of a chair was also broken, and a shower curtain was heavily soiled with mould. Both of these items needed replacing. A clothes rack was also damaged during the tenancy.
The landlord stated that all items were approximately five years old at the beginning of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord claimed for a new sandwich press, a shoe rack, a vacuum cleaner and a rice cooker. Insufficient information was provided by the landlord to show that the condition of these items was such that they needed replacing at the end of the tenancy. These claims are not proved.

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.
The landlord claimed that during the tenancy the tenant damaged the splashback in the kitchen and this needed replacing. The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage to the splashback and also accepted or partially accepted damage to a smoke detector, a fridge socket, the silicon sealant in the bathroom and kitchen, and blockage of the sink and hand basin.
The landlord claimed for repairs to three towel rails where the plastic has deteriorated and broken. The tenant considered the damage to be wear and tear. I accept the damage is more than fair wear and tear, but I take into account the age and condition of the towel rails at the beginning of the tenancy in making an award.
The landlord claimed for replacing a window latch that had become loose. I consider this to be wear and tear and not a result of careless on the part of the tenant.
The landlord claimed for replacement of a power socket which had come away from the wall in the bathroom. The tenant stated there appeared no reason why it couldn’t be re-attached to the wall. The landlord couldn’t refute this, and I accept it. I have awarded a reduced amount to cover the cost of repair.
The landlord also claimed for repairing four areas where sticky hooks had pulled off the wall and caused damage to the paint. The hooks had been put up by a previous tenant and had been there for several years. The tenant was of the view that such hooks are not permanent fixtures and as such the damage they caused should be considered fair wear and tear. I agree with the tenant on this appraisal.
The landlord claimed full replacement cost of $920.00 for a carpet that was installed in the premises four months before the end of the tenancy, and which by the end of the tenancy had significant wear marks in it. Photographs prove the damage.
The tenant considered the damage could have been caused by a leak that had stained the previous carpet. I consider this submission speculative and give it little weight.
In my view, although the carpet is damaged and the landlord has clearly suffered some loss, the carpet is still in an acceptable condition for a rental property such as this, and does not warrant replacing. I have made an award of 50% of the claim based on what I consider to be the landlord’s loss.
In all the claims for repairs and compensation, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Loss of rent
The landlord claims that because the tenant returned the premises in a very poor state, they were unable to rent the property for three weeks longer than usual between tenancies and have therefore should be compensated $1,770.00 for three weeks loss of rent.
The tenant stated that the landlord did not conduct any viewings at the end of the tenancy, so wasn’t in a position to relet the property quickly in any case.
Although the property did need a thorough clean, some repairs and the replacement of some appliances, in my view there was no large or complex work that was required. A certain amount of downtime between tenancies is inevitable and is a cost of running this commercial enterprise. If the landlord had conducted an inspection towards the end of the tenancy to assess the condition of the premises, they could have arranged tradespeople to conduct the work immediately after the vacate date and downtime would have been no more than usual.
I do not consider the damage to the premises to be significant enough to warrant compensation for lost rent.
This claim is not proved.
Because Saing Heng Lorth has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5136251 — net $1,548.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$563.50	Cleaning
Repairs	$361.65	Repairs
Replace appliances	$136.10	Replace appliances
Replace carpet	$460.00	Replace carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,548.25
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,548.25

Order

Hindan.K Limited Hindan Khan to pay Saing Heng Lorth $1,548.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (5906818-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Saing Heng Lorth: $1,548.25 Hindan.K Limited Hindan Khan: $811.75

Reasons

Stephanie Lorth attended the hearing for the landlord.
Hindan Khan attended the hearing and was represented by Yeob Jeong during the hearing.
This is a cross-application for unit 6D/15 Whittaker Place Grafton.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied to have their bond refunded.

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 “RTA”).
The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. In particular the bathroom and kitchen were not clean, and the carpets needed cleaning. The tenant accepted this but suggested the landlord could have given the tenant a further opportunity to bring their contractor back to have another attempt at cleaning the premises.
After the tenancy has ended it is the landlord’s prerogative to decide whether they ask the tenant to have another attempt at cleaning, or whether they make their own arrangements to clean the apartment. In the circumstances I consider the cleaning bill for the apartment including carpets to be reasonable, and it is awarded in full.
The landlord seeks compensation to replace a number of appliances that they say were damaged during the tenancy. Photographs were provided that show the microwave and toaster to be rusty and significantly damaged at the end of the tenancy, when they were not at the beginning of the tenancy. The frame of a chair was also broken, and a shower curtain was heavily soiled with mould. Both of these items needed replacing. A clothes rack was also damaged during the tenancy.
The landlord stated that all items were approximately five years old at the beginning of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord claimed for a new sandwich press, a shoe rack, a vacuum cleaner and a rice cooker. Insufficient information was provided by the landlord to show that the condition of these items was such that they needed replacing at the end of the tenancy. These claims are not proved.

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.
The landlord claimed that during the tenancy the tenant damaged the splashback in the kitchen and this needed replacing. The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage to the splashback and also accepted or partially accepted damage to a smoke detector, a fridge socket, the silicon sealant in the bathroom and kitchen, and blockage of the sink and hand basin.
The landlord claimed for repairs to three towel rails where the plastic has deteriorated and broken. The tenant considered the damage to be wear and tear. I accept the damage is more than fair wear and tear, but I take into account the age and condition of the towel rails at the beginning of the tenancy in making an award.
The landlord claimed for replacing a window latch that had become loose. I consider this to be wear and tear and not a result of careless on the part of the tenant.
The landlord claimed for replacement of a power socket which had come away from the wall in the bathroom. The tenant stated there appeared no reason why it couldn’t be re-attached to the wall. The landlord couldn’t refute this, and I accept it. I have awarded a reduced amount to cover the cost of repair.
The landlord also claimed for repairing four areas where sticky hooks had pulled off the wall and caused damage to the paint. The hooks had been put up by a previous tenant and had been there for several years. The tenant was of the view that such hooks are not permanent fixtures and as such the damage they caused should be considered fair wear and tear. I agree with the tenant on this appraisal.
The landlord claimed full replacement cost of $920.00 for a carpet that was installed in the premises four months before the end of the tenancy, and which by the end of the tenancy had significant wear marks in it. Photographs prove the damage.
The tenant considered the damage could have been caused by a leak that had stained the previous carpet. I consider this submission speculative and give it little weight.
In my view, although the carpet is damaged and the landlord has clearly suffered some loss, the carpet is still in an acceptable condition for a rental property such as this, and does not warrant replacing. I have made an award of 50% of the claim based on what I consider to be the landlord’s loss.
In all the claims for repairs and compensation, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Loss of rent
The landlord claims that because the tenant returned the premises in a very poor state, they were unable to rent the property for three weeks longer than usual between tenancies and have therefore should be compensated $1,770.00 for three weeks loss of rent.
The tenant stated that the landlord did not conduct any viewings at the end of the tenancy, so wasn’t in a position to relet the property quickly in any case.
Although the property did need a thorough clean, some repairs and the replacement of some appliances, in my view there was no large or complex work that was required. A certain amount of downtime between tenancies is inevitable and is a cost of running this commercial enterprise. If the landlord had conducted an inspection towards the end of the tenancy to assess the condition of the premises, they could have arranged tradespeople to conduct the work immediately after the vacate date and downtime would have been no more than usual.
I do not consider the damage to the premises to be significant enough to warrant compensation for lost rent.
This claim is not proved.
Because Saing Heng Lorth has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136251 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 6D, 15 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5136251 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 6D, 15 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions