What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5267040?

The tribunal order states: Summer Irvine and Paul Irvine must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5267040?

Cleaning: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267040?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12225303-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5267040?

The tribunal order states: Summer Irvine and Paul Irvine must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5267040?

Cleaning: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5267040?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5267040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12225303-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Sumner Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5267040 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5267040 — net $352.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$235.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Walls	$90.00	Cleaning: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$352.00
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$352.00

Summer Irvine and Paul Irvine must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited As Agent For Kurt Joy And Katherine Allen $352.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (5268055-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Real Estate Limited As Agent For Kurt Joy And Katherine Allen: $352.00 Summer Irvine and Paul Irvine: $1,948.00

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in that there were carpet stains that required cleaning and sticky items on the walls. The landlord provided photographs and receipts to prove its claims.

The landlord also claimed the cost of a handyman to move furniture for the carpet to be cleaned. That is because the carpet cleaning was arranged after the premises had been staged for sale. That is not a cost reasonably attributable to the tenant, the carpet cleaning could have been done while the premises were vacant. That aspect of the claim is dismissed.

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 three insurances excess of $750.00 for replacement carpet. Some minor marks remained evident after the carpet was cleaned. Some minor marks or spills can occur during normal use of the premises. The evidence did not establish that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. If it was, it was not at a level that meant the carpet had to be replaced.

Further, I am not satisfied that the landlord suffered any loss as a result of the residual marks on the carpet. The carpet was not replaced, and the premises have been sold. 1 1 See Yin and Shelter Realty Limited v Waitai [2021] NZDC 23054 - Landlord claimed compensation for damage to premises, but house sold before the damage repaired. No loss sustained by landlord, so compensation declined.

The property manager gave evidence that the owners told her that they made an insurance claim which was settled, and that three excesses were deducted by the insurer but the owners paid the purchaser the full cost of replacement carpet. There was no corroborating evidence to support that. I would have expected to see confirmation of the insurance claim and settlement and evidence of the arrangement between the owner and purchaser. The claim for compensation for replacement carpet is dismissed.

As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. However, it was not substantially successful, so I have declined its required for suppression of its details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5267040 — net $352.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$235.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Walls	$90.00	Cleaning: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$352.00
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$352.00

Order

Summer Irvine and Paul Irvine must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited As Agent For Kurt Joy And Katherine Allen $352.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (5268055-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Real Estate Limited As Agent For Kurt Joy And Katherine Allen: $352.00 Summer Irvine and Paul Irvine: $1,948.00

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in that there were carpet stains that required cleaning and sticky items on the walls. The landlord provided photographs and receipts to prove its claims.
The landlord also claimed the cost of a handyman to move furniture for the carpet to be cleaned. That is because the carpet cleaning was arranged after the premises had been staged for sale. That is not a cost reasonably attributable to the tenant, the carpet cleaning could have been done while the premises were vacant. That aspect of the claim is dismissed.

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 three insurances excess of $750.00 for replacement carpet. Some minor marks remained evident after the carpet was cleaned. Some minor marks or spills can occur during normal use of the premises. The evidence did not establish that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. If it was, it was not at a level that meant the carpet had to be replaced.
Further, I am not satisfied that the landlord suffered any loss as a result of the residual marks on the carpet. The carpet was not replaced, and the premises have been sold. 1 1 See Yin and Shelter Realty Limited v Waitai [2021] NZDC 23054 - Landlord claimed compensation for damage to premises, but house sold before the damage repaired. No loss sustained by landlord, so compensation declined.
The property manager gave evidence that the owners told her that they made an insurance claim which was settled, and that three excesses were deducted by the insurer but the owners paid the purchaser the full cost of replacement carpet. There was no corroborating evidence to support that. I would have expected to see confirmation of the insurance claim and settlement and evidence of the arrangement between the owner and purchaser. The claim for compensation for replacement carpet is dismissed.
As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. However, it was not substantially successful, so I have declined its required for suppression of its details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267040 — Cleanliness at 17 Sumner Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5267040 — Cleanliness at 17 Sumner Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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