What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4614929 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4614929?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614929?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9497454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4614929 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4614929?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614929?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9497454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4614929 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614929 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $100 from the bond in accordance with the following table:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $630.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $0.00 [The tenant/s]: $630.00

Reasons

[Tenant 1] and his son [Tenant 2] moved into this property approximately 12 years ago. Unfortunately, no one has a tenancy agreement dating back to that time as [property management company] took over in 2018. In 2018 another tenancy agreement was signed between [Property management company] and [Tenant 1] noting him as the tenant, but him and [Tenant 2] as the ‘occupants’.
[Tenant 2] was treated and acted as a tenant throughout the tenancy and although not named as such on the tenancy agreement I am satisfied that he fits within the definition of a ‘tenant’ pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). [The landlord’s representative] representing [The landlord/s] agrees with this assessment, as does [Tenant 2] himself.
Section 85 of the Act directs that the Tribunal should administer its jurisdiction within the general principles of the law relating and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. In accordance with section 85 I consider it appropriate that [Tenant 2] be deemed a tenant of this tenancy. Accordingly, I join him as a party to these proceedings.
Sadly, [Tenant 1] passed away in April this year and subsequently [Tenant 2] moved out.
Both parties have now applied to the Tribunal to disperse the bond. The landlord seeks compensation for having to clean the carpet and the house; [Tenant 2] and his brother [The tenant’s representative] who represented him at the hearing, dispute those claims and seek the full bond.
In the Tenancy Tribunal, the “standard of proof” or the level or evidence required is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the applicant, being the landlord here, must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” I consider both of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.

Was the carpet reasonably clean?

[The landlord’s representative] seeks compensation of $280.78 for having to undertake a deep clean of the carpets upon which there were many stains. She has provided photos which show stains on the carpet in various rooms and a carpet that clearly needed a clean. For unfortunate and unknown reasons the invoices were not provided to the [Tenant/s] until the hearing.
[The tenant’s representative] argues that [Tenant 2] should not be liable for this cost for two reasons. Firstly, he says his father and brother lived there for 12 years, therefore fair wear and tear needs to be taken into account. Secondly, [Tenant 2] is clear that there were stains on the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy.
No one has photos of the property when the [Tenant/s] moved in. [The landlord’s representative] didn’t see it and couldn’t comment on the state of the floors during the tenancy as there was a lot of furniture in the property. Accordingly, [Tenant 2] is the only one who can give an account of how the property was provided to them originally.
Having thoroughly considered the evidence the parties provided prior to, during and after the hearing, I do not find it established that the tenancy was commenced with unstained carpets. In saying that I also find it likely that some stains occurred during this tenancy.
However, it is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as carpets are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor marks in the course of that residence, especially when it is of such a duration as this. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that “damage” (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
Some of these stains however are considerable and some appear to have been recent as evidenced by the ones in the photos that show a substance over the wall and carpet. It is not reasonable for tenants to leave large stains on carpets at the end of tenancies; this is in excess of fair wear and tear.
Accordingly, I find that some of the larger stains should have been attended to by the tenants, however the majority were either not established to have occurred during the tenancy or to be more than fair wear and tear. I therefore direct that compensation of $50 be paid to the landlord for the section of the carpet cleaning that was required as attributable to the tenants in accordance with their responsibility pursuant to s40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy way.

Was the house left reasonably clean and tidy?

[The landlord’s representative] submits that the property was not returned reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. She claims compensation of $200 for the cleaner’s invoice which covered cleaning the interior windows, bedroom walls, surface cleaning throughout the property, cleaning the stove top and light shades and vacuuming. She has provided detailed photos to substantiate the claim.
[The tenant’s representative] disputes the photos as he says they did leave the property clean. He says they, and others, spent several weeks cleaning and did not leave the property in the way it was depicted other than potentially some dirty lamp shades, some finger-marks on light switches and some cobwebs. He disputes the amount claimed as he took advice from another cleaner who said it would only cost about $90 to attend to the areas the photos show. He therefore says the invoice, which again was provided to him late, is inflated.
He pointed out inconsistencies in the exit report and as such says it is inaccurate. He also referred to a statement that [Tenant 2] had [The landlord’s representative] sign which says that the property passed the final inspection and as such [Tenant 2] was to get the full refund of the bond. He says she misled them into assuming that all was fine with the property, and they did not need to be present for the final inspection which they had wanted to discuss with her.
[The landlord’s representative] agrees that she did sign this document but notes that she wrote on it that this was subject to her obtaining confirmation from the owner. She also says the meeting at which she signed this was chaotic as she was in the process of showing prospective tenants the property. She says that when the owner was shown the photos of the state of the property, she was instructed to claim the cleaning costs from the bond.
As discussed above s40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act requires tenants to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy way at the end of a tenancy. This statutory obligation 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. What is specifically required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house.
The Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the property was left reasonably clean and tidy. In doing that I look at the exit report as a whole and I do not consider the minor written discrepancies as weighty; it is the photos that hold the most weight for me. I take into account the statement signed by both parties but also [The landlord’s representative] caveat that she needed to discuss it with her owner and the fact that she signed it without having taken the photos or examining it closely.
Having assessed the photos, including the fact that no further clean was undertaken by the landlord prior to the next tenancy, I am satisfied that the property was not left reasonably clean, but very nearly. The [Tenant/s] had done a very good job, however there were some areas they missed. In particular I reference the photos of mould/debris on some areas of the walls. I appreciate that [The tenant’s representative] contests the validity of these photos however I find it established that they were taken at the exit inspection on the 26 th .
Accordingly, I find that an award of $50 compensation towards the cleaning is reasonable in light of the evidence provided. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall. 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. As I consider both parties successful to an extent in their applications, I allow both parties’ applications for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614929 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $100 from the bond in accordance with the following table:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $630.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $0.00 [The tenant/s]: $630.00

Reasons

[Tenant 1] and his son [Tenant 2] moved into this property approximately 12 years ago. Unfortunately, no one has a tenancy agreement dating back to that time as [property management company] took over in 2018. In 2018 another tenancy agreement was signed between [Property management company] and [Tenant 1] noting him as the tenant, but him and [Tenant 2] as the ‘occupants’.
[Tenant 2] was treated and acted as a tenant throughout the tenancy and although not named as such on the tenancy agreement I am satisfied that he fits within the definition of a ‘tenant’ pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). [The landlord’s representative] representing [The landlord/s] agrees with this assessment, as does [Tenant 2] himself.
Section 85 of the Act directs that the Tribunal should administer its jurisdiction within the general principles of the law relating and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. In accordance with section 85 I consider it appropriate that [Tenant 2] be deemed a tenant of this tenancy. Accordingly, I join him as a party to these proceedings.
Sadly, [Tenant 1] passed away in April this year and subsequently [Tenant 2] moved out.
Both parties have now applied to the Tribunal to disperse the bond. The landlord seeks compensation for having to clean the carpet and the house; [Tenant 2] and his brother [The tenant’s representative] who represented him at the hearing, dispute those claims and seek the full bond.
In the Tenancy Tribunal, the “standard of proof” or the level or evidence required is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the applicant, being the landlord here, must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” I consider both of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.

Was the carpet reasonably clean?

[The landlord’s representative] seeks compensation of $280.78 for having to undertake a deep clean of the carpets upon which there were many stains. She has provided photos which show stains on the carpet in various rooms and a carpet that clearly needed a clean. For unfortunate and unknown reasons the invoices were not provided to the [Tenant/s] until the hearing.
[The tenant’s representative] argues that [Tenant 2] should not be liable for this cost for two reasons. Firstly, he says his father and brother lived there for 12 years, therefore fair wear and tear needs to be taken into account. Secondly, [Tenant 2] is clear that there were stains on the carpet at the commencement of the tenancy.
No one has photos of the property when the [Tenant/s] moved in. [The landlord’s representative] didn’t see it and couldn’t comment on the state of the floors during the tenancy as there was a lot of furniture in the property. Accordingly, [Tenant 2] is the only one who can give an account of how the property was provided to them originally.
Having thoroughly considered the evidence the parties provided prior to, during and after the hearing, I do not find it established that the tenancy was commenced with unstained carpets. In saying that I also find it likely that some stains occurred during this tenancy.
However, it is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as carpets are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor marks in the course of that residence, especially when it is of such a duration as this. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that “damage” (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
Some of these stains however are considerable and some appear to have been recent as evidenced by the ones in the photos that show a substance over the wall and carpet. It is not reasonable for tenants to leave large stains on carpets at the end of tenancies; this is in excess of fair wear and tear.
Accordingly, I find that some of the larger stains should have been attended to by the tenants, however the majority were either not established to have occurred during the tenancy or to be more than fair wear and tear. I therefore direct that compensation of $50 be paid to the landlord for the section of the carpet cleaning that was required as attributable to the tenants in accordance with their responsibility pursuant to s40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy way.

Was the house left reasonably clean and tidy?

[The landlord’s representative] submits that the property was not returned reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. She claims compensation of $200 for the cleaner’s invoice which covered cleaning the interior windows, bedroom walls, surface cleaning throughout the property, cleaning the stove top and light shades and vacuuming. She has provided detailed photos to substantiate the claim.
[The tenant’s representative] disputes the photos as he says they did leave the property clean. He says they, and others, spent several weeks cleaning and did not leave the property in the way it was depicted other than potentially some dirty lamp shades, some finger-marks on light switches and some cobwebs. He disputes the amount claimed as he took advice from another cleaner who said it would only cost about $90 to attend to the areas the photos show. He therefore says the invoice, which again was provided to him late, is inflated.
He pointed out inconsistencies in the exit report and as such says it is inaccurate. He also referred to a statement that [Tenant 2] had [The landlord’s representative] sign which says that the property passed the final inspection and as such [Tenant 2] was to get the full refund of the bond. He says she misled them into assuming that all was fine with the property, and they did not need to be present for the final inspection which they had wanted to discuss with her.
[The landlord’s representative] agrees that she did sign this document but notes that she wrote on it that this was subject to her obtaining confirmation from the owner. She also says the meeting at which she signed this was chaotic as she was in the process of showing prospective tenants the property. She says that when the owner was shown the photos of the state of the property, she was instructed to claim the cleaning costs from the bond.
As discussed above s40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act requires tenants to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy way at the end of a tenancy. This statutory obligation 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. What is specifically required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house.
The Tribunal’s role is to assess whether the property was left reasonably clean and tidy. In doing that I look at the exit report as a whole and I do not consider the minor written discrepancies as weighty; it is the photos that hold the most weight for me. I take into account the statement signed by both parties but also [The landlord’s representative] caveat that she needed to discuss it with her owner and the fact that she signed it without having taken the photos or examining it closely.
Having assessed the photos, including the fact that no further clean was undertaken by the landlord prior to the next tenancy, I am satisfied that the property was not left reasonably clean, but very nearly. The [Tenant/s] had done a very good job, however there were some areas they missed. In particular I reference the photos of mould/debris on some areas of the walls. I appreciate that [The tenant’s representative] contests the validity of these photos however I find it established that they were taken at the exit inspection on the 26 th .
Accordingly, I find that an award of $50 compensation towards the cleaning is reasonable in light of the evidence provided. Filing fee
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall. 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. As I consider both parties successful to an extent in their applications, I allow both parties’ applications for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614929 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614929 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the carpet reasonably clean?

Was the house left reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the carpet reasonably clean?

Was the house left reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions