How much money was awarded in case 4621469?

Cleaning: $120.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4621469?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4621469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9363817-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4621469?

Cleaning: $120.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4621469?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4621469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9363817-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 59 Norwood Road, Bayswater, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4621469 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4621469 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4621469 — net $100.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: 1.5 hours @/hour	$120.75		Cleaning: 1.5 hours @/hour
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$120.75	$20.44
Net award	$100.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.31

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For James Woodfine $100.31 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for a full refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The dispute between the parties is whether the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The specific areas that are in dispute are: a. Oven door. b. Mould off on the bottom of window glass; and c. Shower.

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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

At the beginning of the hearing, the landlord submitted photos taken on 26 June 2023. This was the date when the tenant returned to clean the areas that the landlord had claimed were not reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord submitted further photos taken on 3 July 2023. This was the date the cleaners cleaned the areas not considered reasonably clean by the landlord.

The tenant submitted two additional photos showing the cleaned areas of the premises after returning.

What is reasonably clean and reasonably tidy has been discussed in many cases. In Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens CIV-2008-085-001441 11, 17 December 2008, His Honour Judge Thomas said in paragraphs 18 and 19: [18] ... A tenant’s obligation under the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider acceptable for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters. [19] Whether the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective assessment after considering all the evidence....

I am not prepared to rule that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

I acknowledge the tenant is not a professional cleaner and there are areas she may consider clean or should be cleaned by the landlord in preparation for the new tenant.

My view is that the tenant should compensate the landlord for 1.5 hours of the cleaner’s time, regardless of what the parties consider reasonably clean and tidy. My reasons are: a. The disputes between the parties are limited to 3 areas of the premises. See paragraph 4 above. b. Mopping the toilet and kitchen floor is not necessary because the landlord did not suggest the floor was not clean and tidy. c. Shower is an area where mould is likely to accumulate over time. The tenant did clean it. I consider the tenant left the shower in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. d. Further cleaning is necessary for drawers and oven door.

Accordingly, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord for 1.5 hours of the cleaners’ service.

The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant’s other claims for compensation

Loss of interest on bond for $106.20 @4.05%

Loss of items of sentimental value for $300.

Loss of earnings for $880; and

Stress and humiliation for $500.

I dismiss each of the claims above for the following reasons: a. Both the landlord and the tenant benefit from the bond centre that holds the bond money. The Residential Tenancies Act ("RTA") does not allow for interest to be awarded on the bond money held in trust for the parties until any disputes are resolved and determined. b. There is no evidence of sentimental value items before me. Even if such items were present, I fail to see the connection between cleanliness and the loss of sentimental items. c. There is no evidence to support a claim of lost earnings. Even if there were, I fail to see how it relates to the current dispute. d. It is common for landlords and tenants to have disagreements. If a landlord disputes a tenant's claim that the premises is clean and tidy, it does not necessarily mean that the tenant is being humiliated. However, it is important to understand that disputes can lead to stress during the court process. It is natural to experience stress, but it cannot be entirely attributed to the dispute. Filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4621469 — net $100.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: 1.5 hours @/hour	$120.75		Cleaning: 1.5 hours @/hour
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$120.75	$20.44
Net award	$100.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.31

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For James Woodfine $100.31 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a full refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The dispute between the parties is whether the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The specific areas that are in dispute are: a. Oven door. b. Mould off on the bottom of window glass; and c. Shower.

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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At the beginning of the hearing, the landlord submitted photos taken on 26 June 2023. This was the date when the tenant returned to clean the areas that the landlord had claimed were not reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord submitted further photos taken on 3 July 2023. This was the date the cleaners cleaned the areas not considered reasonably clean by the landlord.
The tenant submitted two additional photos showing the cleaned areas of the premises after returning.
What is reasonably clean and reasonably tidy has been discussed in many cases. In Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens CIV-2008-085-001441 11, 17 December 2008, His Honour Judge Thomas said in paragraphs 18 and 19: [18] ... A tenant’s obligation under the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider acceptable for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters. [19] Whether the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective assessment after considering all the evidence....
I am not prepared to rule that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
I acknowledge the tenant is not a professional cleaner and there are areas she may consider clean or should be cleaned by the landlord in preparation for the new tenant.
My view is that the tenant should compensate the landlord for 1.5 hours of the cleaner’s time, regardless of what the parties consider reasonably clean and tidy. My reasons are: a. The disputes between the parties are limited to 3 areas of the premises. See paragraph 4 above. b. Mopping the toilet and kitchen floor is not necessary because the landlord did not suggest the floor was not clean and tidy. c. Shower is an area where mould is likely to accumulate over time. The tenant did clean it. I consider the tenant left the shower in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. d. Further cleaning is necessary for drawers and oven door.
Accordingly, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord for 1.5 hours of the cleaners’ service.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant’s other claims for compensation
Loss of interest on bond for $106.20 @4.05%
Loss of items of sentimental value for $300.
Loss of earnings for $880; and
Stress and humiliation for $500.
I dismiss each of the claims above for the following reasons: a. Both the landlord and the tenant benefit from the bond centre that holds the bond money. The Residential Tenancies Act ("RTA") does not allow for interest to be awarded on the bond money held in trust for the parties until any disputes are resolved and determined. b. There is no evidence of sentimental value items before me. Even if such items were present, I fail to see the connection between cleanliness and the loss of sentimental items. c. There is no evidence to support a claim of lost earnings. Even if there were, I fail to see how it relates to the current dispute. d. It is common for landlords and tenants to have disagreements. If a landlord disputes a tenant's claim that the premises is clean and tidy, it does not necessarily mean that the tenant is being humiliated. However, it is important to understand that disputes can lead to stress during the court process. It is natural to experience stress, but it cannot be entirely attributed to the dispute. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4621469 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 59 Norwood Road, Bayswater, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4621469 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 59 Norwood Road, Bayswater, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions