What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5153591?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5153591?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153591?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11721896-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5153591?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5153591?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153591?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11721896-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 124 Bright Street, Gisborne, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153591 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Collier, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The tenant’s phone number, the last three digits being 616, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord initially said the end of the tenancy was 12 June 2024 but later said the property was deemed to have been abandoned on 16 May 2024, after the tenant disappeared, later found to have been arrested.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord made the following compensation claims: a. Carpet clean - $280.00 b. Dumping fee - $40.00 c. Clean of couch, chair and mattress, touch up of carpet stains - $713.00 d. Clean apartment, including interior windows - $780.00 e. Pack up tenant’s personal items and move to storage – 2 people at 2 hours - $200.00 f. Clean blinds – 4 pieces - $195.50 g. Patch and paint 1 wall, repair chip wood flooring in kitchen, repair chip in bathroom door - $450.00 h. Roller blind cleaning – 4 pieces @ $20.00 each - $80.00 i. Broken wall mirror replacement - $25.00 j. Storage of tenant’s personal belongings and car for 35 days - $225.00
The applicant claimed the tenant left the carpets in the property dirty, that they had to clean up and dispose of his rubbish and perishable items, that the property needed extensive cleaning, that the venetian and roller blinds needed cleaning, that a broken wall mirror needed to be replaced and that a wall in the living room, with an indent no larger than a finger needed to be patched, filled and painted, chip wood flooring in the kitchen where the laminate had peeled had to be repaired and a small nick in the bathroom door also had to be repaired and painted.
The landlord said further that, as the tenant was taken away by the police suddenly, all his food and belongings were left. They indicated they had to dispose of the perishable food items, move the tenant’s heavy belongings, such as gym equipment to a large storage room in the same building as the premises, and also had to store the tenant’s Toyota Hilux truck in the car park at the building.
The landlord did not provide an Ingoing Inspection Report or an Outgoing Inspection Report or any photographs of the tenant’s belongings left, the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy and in a number of claims, did not provide invoices for work that they said was done at the end of the tenancy. The property manager confirmed that the owners had done much of the clean-up work themselves and had obtained quotes for similar work from professionals, such as a professional cleaner, a storage business and carpet cleaner, to use the amounts quoted to claim for the work the owners did. This is problematic in several respects. The Tribunal requires evidence of whether any work was required to be done, according to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requirements about how a property is to be left at the end of the tenancy, by way of photographs and Inspection Reports at the start and end of the tenancy, to show the condition of the property and the condition of any items that needed to be replaced or removed and stored. Further, whoever completes the work required at the end of the tenancy must provide details of the work they completed and the hourly rate they use to charge out their time, for example, and not use the quote of a professional, who is likely to have different rates for the work, as they often factor in overheads to their rates, and may complete a different quality of work, from a layperson. If owners engage professionals to do any work required, then they can provide invoices to show this and claim for these accordingly.
As there are no photographs at all, or Inspection Reports about the condition of the property at the start or end of the tenancy, I cannot assess whether any work was required at the end of the tenancy. Even if these photographs and Inspection Reports had been provided, the landlord would have needed to provide either invoices from any professionals engaged to do the work, or would have needed to provide detailed breakdowns of the work they did at the property at the end of the tenancy, and the rates they charged for their own time to do this work, which they did not. Further, receipts must be provided for all items claimed for replacement. For example, the claim for a broken wall mirror was not supported by a photograph of the broken wall mirror before the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy, nor was any receipt provided by the landlord to prove the cost of its replacement.
In relation to the landlord’s claims to remove and store the tenant’s belongings, there were no photographs or Inspection Reports provided detailing the items belonging to the tenant that were removed and stored. Further, there were no receipts provided for any moving or storage costs, just an invoice from the owners. The property manager said both he and his employee moved out the tenant’s belongings into a large old safe room in the same building as the premises, so it was their time that the owners claimed, and that the tenant’s Toyota Hilux was parked in the tenant’s allotted car park for some months, despite the tenancy ending. The property manager said the landlord had to juggle the car parks available to meet other tenants’ requirements during this time. However, there was no evidence provided of any loss suffered by the landlord regarding the storage of the tenant’s items or car, such as what the old safe space in the premises building used for storage, or the car park, might have been used for and charged for alternately, nor was there any evidence of the landlord being charged for the use of this space themselves, only an invoice from the owners for $225.00 to store the tenant’s belongings and car for 35 days.
Given the insufficient evidence provided by the landlord as outlined above, the applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant should pay them compensation and so I must dismiss the landlord’s claims. Filing fee
As the landlord has not been successful with the claim, I do not reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. The landlord has not been successful with the claim, nor was any evidence provided by the landlord as to whether their interests would outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression. See section 95A(1) and 95A(4) RTA.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Collier, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The tenant’s phone number, the last three digits being 616, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord initially said the end of the tenancy was 12 June 2024 but later said the property was deemed to have been abandoned on 16 May 2024, after the tenant disappeared, later found to have been arrested.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord made the following compensation claims: a. Carpet clean - $280.00 b. Dumping fee - $40.00 c. Clean of couch, chair and mattress, touch up of carpet stains - $713.00 d. Clean apartment, including interior windows - $780.00 e. Pack up tenant’s personal items and move to storage – 2 people at 2 hours - $200.00 f. Clean blinds – 4 pieces - $195.50 g. Patch and paint 1 wall, repair chip wood flooring in kitchen, repair chip in bathroom door - $450.00 h. Roller blind cleaning – 4 pieces @ $20.00 each - $80.00 i. Broken wall mirror replacement - $25.00 j. Storage of tenant’s personal belongings and car for 35 days - $225.00
The applicant claimed the tenant left the carpets in the property dirty, that they had to clean up and dispose of his rubbish and perishable items, that the property needed extensive cleaning, that the venetian and roller blinds needed cleaning, that a broken wall mirror needed to be replaced and that a wall in the living room, with an indent no larger than a finger needed to be patched, filled and painted, chip wood flooring in the kitchen where the laminate had peeled had to be repaired and a small nick in the bathroom door also had to be repaired and painted.
The landlord said further that, as the tenant was taken away by the police suddenly, all his food and belongings were left. They indicated they had to dispose of the perishable food items, move the tenant’s heavy belongings, such as gym equipment to a large storage room in the same building as the premises, and also had to store the tenant’s Toyota Hilux truck in the car park at the building.
The landlord did not provide an Ingoing Inspection Report or an Outgoing Inspection Report or any photographs of the tenant’s belongings left, the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy and in a number of claims, did not provide invoices for work that they said was done at the end of the tenancy. The property manager confirmed that the owners had done much of the clean-up work themselves and had obtained quotes for similar work from professionals, such as a professional cleaner, a storage business and carpet cleaner, to use the amounts quoted to claim for the work the owners did. This is problematic in several respects. The Tribunal requires evidence of whether any work was required to be done, according to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requirements about how a property is to be left at the end of the tenancy, by way of photographs and Inspection Reports at the start and end of the tenancy, to show the condition of the property and the condition of any items that needed to be replaced or removed and stored. Further, whoever completes the work required at the end of the tenancy must provide details of the work they completed and the hourly rate they use to charge out their time, for example, and not use the quote of a professional, who is likely to have different rates for the work, as they often factor in overheads to their rates, and may complete a different quality of work, from a layperson. If owners engage professionals to do any work required, then they can provide invoices to show this and claim for these accordingly.
As there are no photographs at all, or Inspection Reports about the condition of the property at the start or end of the tenancy, I cannot assess whether any work was required at the end of the tenancy. Even if these photographs and Inspection Reports had been provided, the landlord would have needed to provide either invoices from any professionals engaged to do the work, or would have needed to provide detailed breakdowns of the work they did at the property at the end of the tenancy, and the rates they charged for their own time to do this work, which they did not. Further, receipts must be provided for all items claimed for replacement. For example, the claim for a broken wall mirror was not supported by a photograph of the broken wall mirror before the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy, nor was any receipt provided by the landlord to prove the cost of its replacement.
In relation to the landlord’s claims to remove and store the tenant’s belongings, there were no photographs or Inspection Reports provided detailing the items belonging to the tenant that were removed and stored. Further, there were no receipts provided for any moving or storage costs, just an invoice from the owners. The property manager said both he and his employee moved out the tenant’s belongings into a large old safe room in the same building as the premises, so it was their time that the owners claimed, and that the tenant’s Toyota Hilux was parked in the tenant’s allotted car park for some months, despite the tenancy ending. The property manager said the landlord had to juggle the car parks available to meet other tenants’ requirements during this time. However, there was no evidence provided of any loss suffered by the landlord regarding the storage of the tenant’s items or car, such as what the old safe space in the premises building used for storage, or the car park, might have been used for and charged for alternately, nor was there any evidence of the landlord being charged for the use of this space themselves, only an invoice from the owners for $225.00 to store the tenant’s belongings and car for 35 days.
Given the insufficient evidence provided by the landlord as outlined above, the applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant should pay them compensation and so I must dismiss the landlord’s claims. Filing fee
As the landlord has not been successful with the claim, I do not reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. The landlord has not been successful with the claim, nor was any evidence provided by the landlord as to whether their interests would outweigh the public interest in publishing their name. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression. See section 95A(1) and 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153591 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4, 124 Bright Street, Gisborne, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153591 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 4, 124 Bright Street, Gisborne, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions