What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627492 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 4627492?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627492?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627492?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9561855-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627492 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 4627492?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627492?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627492?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9561855-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4627492 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627492 — net $280.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Cleaning	$60.00	Cleaning: Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work: Weeding	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work: Weeding
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$280.44
Bond	$1,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$280.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627492 — net $280.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Cleaning	$60.00	Cleaning: Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work: Weeding	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work: Weeding
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$280.44
Bond	$1,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$280.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
Francesca Eldridge is to pay [The landlord/s] $280.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $280.44 Francesca Eldridge: $1,599.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the first hearing in which I heard submissions and evidence relating to the tenant’s claim for her arranging for the removal of a banana palm and the landlord’s application for cleaning.
The tenant did not attend the second hearing which was scheduled to hear only the landlord’s application for weeding the garden. The tenant requested an adjournment the morning of the hearing due to study commitments. I declined the adjournment. Insufficient evidence was filed to support the request.
The tenant had previously requested to attend the second hearing by telephone. This had been granted and so she was telephoned to join the second hearing. She did not answer and so the second hearing proceeded in her absence.
Before I consider the specific claims, as explained at the hearing I begin by noting that Any party bringing a claim before the Tenancy Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities. They must prove it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects, such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence. Landlord’s cleaning claim
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be in an immaculate condition – only in a reasonably clean state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord provided photographs of the areas it considered to be unclean, and the tenant provided extensive evidence including a video taken at the end of her tenancy.
On the basis of the evidence, I find that some small discrete areas of the home were not reasonably clean. Particularly the area where the fridge had been, parts of the kitchen floor, the bathroom toilet, parts of the shower and the oven which still had oven cleaner residue and grease on the glass door.
There was particular discussion at the hearing about the toilet seat which the tenant said was dirty at the start of the tenancy. The tenant says a photograph she provided to the Tribunal was taken at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord says the toilet seat was not like this at the start of the tenancy and refers to the fact the photograph presented by the tenant matches the photo taken at the end of the tenancy by the landlord. The landlord says while the toilet bowl was dirty at the start of the tenancy, and this was recorded in the in- going property inspection, the toilet seat itself was not recorded as being dirty.
I find the landlord has the better evidence because the ingoing inspection records the unsatisfactory condition of the toilet bowl but makes no remark in relation to the toilet seat. I also find it more probable that if this had been an issue at the start of the tenancy the tenant would have told the landlord.
In any event, the tenant is required to return a property in a reasonably clean condition at the end of the tenancy and the toilet seat was not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy.
However, I find that the landlord’s claim for cleaning is too broad and the amount of cleaning claimed is too wide. The invoice refers to a complete end of tenancy clean and the video of the tenant evidences that a complete clean was not necessary. Of course, a landlord may want to do a deeper clean at the end of a tenancy. That is a business decision and not a cost the tenant is liable for. In other words, a landlord cannot claim for a whole house clean on the basis of some discrete areas being not reasonably clean. The tenant’s video evidence gives a better overall impression of the entire property.
I find that to remedy the areas I have identified as being unreasonably clean $60.00 would be a reasonable amount to award the landlord. Landlord’s gardening claim
The landlord claims $621 for weeding in the garden. The landlord does not claim for the cost of disposing of the garden waste – only the labour. The landlord does not dispute that the lawns had been done and this does not form part of its claim.
The landlord provided me with a selection of photographs showing the garden when the tenant moved in, the garden when the tenant moved out and the condition of the garden once the gardening had been done. The landlord says that photographs of the condition of the garden were taken on 6 July but that the gardener did the work on 20 July just prior to new tenant’s moving in.
Although she did not attend the second hearing the tenant also provided evidence and written submissions in relation to the garden. The tenant’s submissions include the fact that some of the weeds are invasive, they were never mentioned as being her responsibility, the cost is excessive, tradescantia was in an area when she moved in, as was old weed mat and she says that only one bed needed weeding. She says she could not do this due to an injury, but she considered the costs would be reasonable. She questions the invoice provided which has no detail of the hourly rate or time taken.
Having considered all of the evidence carefully, I find that the garden was not left in a reasonably tidy condition. Weeding is a tenant responsibility. It is clear from the evidence filed that more than one bed needed weeding.
However, I accept the tenant’s submissions that tradescantia was in the area under the fruit trees at the start of the tenancy. This can be seen in the ingoing property inspection photograph but also more clearly in the outgoing photograph of the same area. I also accept that weed mat has been removed (although only the labour cost is relevant because no claim has been made in relation to disposal costs).
I have awarded the landlord $200.00 to undertake weeding to the garden which I consider to be reasonable on the basis of the evidence provided.
In making this award I have taken into account the extent of the work evidenced and the fact that two weeks passed between the tenant leaving and the work being done which would have meant there would have been some additional growth which the tenant is not responsible for. I have also taken into account the existing tradescantia at the start of the tenancy. Tenant claim for removal of banana palm
The tenant claims $300 for the removal of a banana palm during the course of the tenancy. She says the landlord failed to maintain a banana palm that caused damage to a fence.
Section 45, RTA provides that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
The tenant says that the palm needed removing because it had grown so much it had pushed against a neighbouring fence causing a gap. The tenant was worried about the gap because she says the fence is a pool fence and she has a young child.
Ultimately, I find that the tenant’s claim for compensation for removing the banana palm fails because she was unable to provide any proof of loss. She arranged for a friend to cut down the palm. He has not charged her for that, and she has not paid him.
In any event, I find that even if the tenant had provided proof of loss her claim would not have been successful. This is because I find, for reasons set out below, that there was no failure to maintain by the landlord.
The tenant provided evidence in the form of an email between the neighbour and the landlord in October 2022. She says this is when the landlord became aware of the issue. The email confirms that there has been a temporary fix and that a new fence needs building. The email sets out that the banana plant is the ‘culprit’.
In March 2023 in an exchange with the landlord the tenant advised that the hole is getting bigger.The exchange shows the landlord, on 29 March 2023, referring to liaising with the neighbour and referring to plywood that had been put over the gap and the neighbour checking for new gaps.
Photographs taken at that time were provided to the Tribunal by the tenant. It is difficult to see from the photograph the extent of the problem. The tenant says the gap is big enough for a dog or child to get through. The landlord denies this. I accept that the photographs do not show a large hole.
The landlord inspected the issue on a property visit with the on 14 April 2023. The landlord says that the owners would have done the work on this visit but that the tenant expressed annoyance that she was not expecting a working bee. The tenant says the landlord was not dressed for dealing with the issue and they did not bring a chainsaw which would have been needed. The landlord did not do the work but said they would get in contractors.
Compelling evidence was presented in the form of an email from a [City] Council inspector who visited the property on 20 April 2023 at the request of the tenant. In summary, his report concludes that he was presently happy with the temporary fix to the fence (although he did emphasise that it was temporary).
The tenant then found out from the neighbour that the landlord had found a price they had been quoted for the removal of the palm to be too high. Text messages provided show the landlord and the neighbour arranging for the removal of the palm tree around this time. The neighbour and the landlord were looking for someone who would do the job cheaper on a cash basis. The messages refer to the neighbour finding a young lad who will do the work and the job being done ‘ASAP’ and the pair agree a price for the work.
An email from the tenant to the landlord then reports on 24 April 2023 that her contact cut down the banana palm yesterday and requests payment.
Although text messages indicate there was some discussion between the tenant and the neighbour about getting the job done (at one point the neighbour says he will do the job and collect the cash from the landlord but on 22 April the tenant says her friend will do it and the neighbour replies that this would be amazing) there was no communication confirming the landlord’s agreement to this discussion between the tenant and the landlord.
I accept the landlord’s position is that they made no agreement with the tenant but were organising it themselves. While there may have been an arrangement between the landlord and the neighbour around the cost and engagement of someone to remove the banana palm and an agreement between the tenant and the neighbour that she would get involved there was no agreement between the tenant and the landlord. The Tribunal can only deal with disputes between a tenant and landlord.
I find that the landlord did not fail to maintain the property. I find that there was a temporary fix in place that was adequate, this is made clear from the Council Inspector, and that the landlords were actively seeking to remedy the issue once they had been made aware of the situation and had inspected the issue on 14 April. That delay was not unreasonable given the temporary fix in place. This means that the tenant cannot claim compensation from the landlord in relation to the repair in any event.
The tenant’s claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. Under s 95A(1) RTA a suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The landlord has been substantially successful in that they have received an award of compensation and have defeated the tenant’s application. I have therefore awarded the landlord name suppression.
The tenant has not been substantially successful. I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA. I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweighs the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the tenant’s application for name suppression ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. That is not itself a sufficient reason to make the order; b. The dispute before me was not unusual or anything other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal; c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. The public interest outweighs the party’s interests.
Accordingly, the tenant’s application for suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627492 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627492 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions