Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4569069 — Rent arrears
Decided 12 Sept 2023 · Published 12 Sept 2023 · Application 4569069
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,111.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. They have already had the bond refunded to them as a result of an undefended application to the Bond Centre.
- [The tenant/s] defends the claims for compensation as she says she has never been provided with itemised invoices detailing what was claimed. She says that when she requested them she was told that if she did not agree to pay the amount sought the landlord would take her to the Tribunal with a list of other claims for compensation.
- I consider each of the claims made separately below and whilst bearing in mind the civil standard of proof being the balance of probabilities, which in other words is what is more likely than not.
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 24 February 2023. There was some lack of clarity as to the end date but after a discussion the 24 th was agreed on by both parties. The rent had been paid directly to the owner who provided an undetailed and unclear rent summary.
- [The tenant/s] agrees that she owes one week and five days of rent. As the rental summary cannot be relied on for lack of clarity, I award the amount agreed by [The tenant/s] only.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- [The landlord/s] seeks $2,245.21 compensation for rubbish removal and cleaning. [The tenant/s] agrees some amount is owed, but not the amount claimed.
- There were many communications between [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] just before and after the end of the tenancy as to the exit process. What transpired is that [The tenant/s] did have some time after she had vacated to remove all her belongings but as she did not do so completely, on 3, 6 and 7 March [The landlord/s] engaged a trade to remove and dispose of the remaining belongings and clean the property.
- The amount sought by [The landlord/s] has been arrived at by a complicated process that had not been clearly explained to [The tenant/s] prior to the hearing and was not transparent the Tribunal. It appears after extensive discussion that the claims can be broken down to $829.15 including GST for cleaning and $1,416.06 for rubbish removal. I consider them separately below. Cleaning
- [The tenant/s] says the home was not clean when she moved in however the ingoing inspection photos speak otherwise other than a note about the ensuite shower glass that says it needs cleaning.
- She also says she did clean but did not do things like the skirting boards as she knew the carpet was being replaced therefore it was nonsensical to clean them.
- The photos of the property do establish that it was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy way. However, although [The landlord/s] had reduced the initial claim by $184.79 to account for cleaning that she considered a landlord responsibility, I find there was still some cleaning undertaken by the cleaner that would not be expected of a tenant.
- The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, see section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
- The invoice provided by the cleaner indicates approximately 10 hours of cleaning work although it is unclear. The photos indicate some cleaning had been done but more was needed in specific the toilet, the oven, skirting boards, switches, lights, shower and some marks on doors and walls. Overall, having assessed the evidence I am satisfied that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy however I find the invoice unreasonable in light of the work that needed to be done to meet the statutory standard. The cleaning undertaken would have taken the property to a standard higher than is expected of tenants.
- Accordingly, I am satisfied that an award of $400 is reasonable in the circumstances. Rubbish removal
- [The tenant/s] agrees she did leave some belongings in the property but disagrees with the amount claimed and says some items identified were not hers but were in the premises from the outset.
- The photos demonstrate a number of items remaining after the tenancy had ended and the refuse centre charges of $237 corroborate that. I am satisfied on the evidence that [The tenant/s] is responsible for the rubbish removal charges however I have deducted a small amount from the amount claimed to account for her claim that some items in the garden were there at the commencement of the tenancy. I accept this claim because the ingoing inspection notes there were items in the garden at the commencement. Dishwasher wheel replacement
- [The landlord/s] also seeks $48 for replacement wheels for the dishwasher. In February 2022 [The tenant/s] had replaced the dishwasher with a new one. [The landlord/s] says the bottom tray did not have wheels when the house was returned to them and therefore was clunky to use. [The tenant/s] assumes there never were any wheels as she never noticed it didn’t have any and she didn’t remove them.
- The dishwasher was still under warranty and yet the landlord did not investigate obtaining wheels through the warranty. Further they did not ask [The tenant/s] for wheels despite knowing that she had a contact at the shop the dishwasher was purchased from.
- Section 49 of the RTA requires parties to take steps to mitigate loss in such situations. I am not satisfied that the landlord took all reasonable steps that were available to them in the circumstances. Therefore, I do not find [The tenant/s] liable for the replacement cost. This claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
- Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
- Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. This includes being successful in their application or in their defence to an application.
- [The tenant/s] has partly been successful in her defence to this claim and has consented to part of it. I also agree with her submission that she was not given full detail of the claim prior to the application or hearing therefore could not make an informed decision on the claims sought. It is imperative that landlords who seek money from tenants provide all the corroboratory documentation for them when doing so. Further, a bond is tenant money and therefore obtaining a bond to pay for those costs must also be done in a transparent way.
- Accordingly, I approve [The tenant/s]’s claim for suppression.