What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4631293 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 4631293?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631293?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9514206-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4631293 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 4631293?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631293?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9514206-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4631293 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4631293 — net $220.44 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	$100.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$50.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$220.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$220.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Patrick Relos and Jennifer Relos are to pay [The landlord/s] $220.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The balance of the bond is to be paid to the tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that her claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be taken into account when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 {“RTA”).
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have held: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. A tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner and tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. e. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant, and f. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling, for example: rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
Both parties accepted that the property was presented in a high standard of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant produced evidence that he paid a professional cleaning company $510.00 on the last day of the tenancy to clean the property.
The landlord accepted that her standards of cleanliness were probably higher than that required of the tenant under the RTA at the end of the tenancy. However, there were three particular areas in which she claimed the tenant fell short of the required standard: a. The shower and toilet. b. The bathroom ceiling. c. The range hood. d. The carpet. e. An area of garden at the rear of the property that required weeding.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the shower floor, the shower’s clear door and the top surface of the range hood were visibly unclean, that the toilet bowl was stained and there was mould on the roof of the bathroom.
The landlord confirmed that she had been able to clean these areas to a reasonably clean standard and was seeking $210.00 in compensation.
I am persuaded that the landlord’s claim for this cleaning, supported by photographic evidence, has been made out. It is appropriate to award the landlord a sum of $100.00 being two hours’ cleaning at $50.00 per hour.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that there were three small stains on the carpet. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. The tenant responsibly accepted that these were caused accidentally by his child.
The landlord further claimed that the carpets required a general clean because of food smells and embedded food. Her photographs were unable to show this and the tenant denied it. For the tenant to be liable for the carpet cleaning, the landlord would need to show that the dirtiness of the carpet was beyond fair wear and tear. I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that she has done so.
It is appropriate that the landlord be reimbursed for one hour at $50.00 per hour for trying to remove the stains. This is better viewed as damage repair rather than cleaning.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of a small area of garden at the rear of the property that had not been weeded and left in a reasonably tidy condition. It is appropriate that the landlord be compensated for an hour’s labour which includes the disposal of the green waste.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4631293 — net $220.44 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	$100.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$50.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$220.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$220.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Patrick Relos and Jennifer Relos are to pay [The landlord/s] $220.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The balance of the bond is to be paid to the tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that her claim is “more likely than not.” I consider each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be taken into account when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, I am not saying that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 {“RTA”).
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have held: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. A tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner and tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. e. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant, and f. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling, for example: rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
Both parties accepted that the property was presented in a high standard of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant produced evidence that he paid a professional cleaning company $510.00 on the last day of the tenancy to clean the property.
The landlord accepted that her standards of cleanliness were probably higher than that required of the tenant under the RTA at the end of the tenancy. However, there were three particular areas in which she claimed the tenant fell short of the required standard: a. The shower and toilet. b. The bathroom ceiling. c. The range hood. d. The carpet. e. An area of garden at the rear of the property that required weeding.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the shower floor, the shower’s clear door and the top surface of the range hood were visibly unclean, that the toilet bowl was stained and there was mould on the roof of the bathroom.
The landlord confirmed that she had been able to clean these areas to a reasonably clean standard and was seeking $210.00 in compensation.
I am persuaded that the landlord’s claim for this cleaning, supported by photographic evidence, has been made out. It is appropriate to award the landlord a sum of $100.00 being two hours’ cleaning at $50.00 per hour.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that there were three small stains on the carpet. The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. The tenant responsibly accepted that these were caused accidentally by his child.
The landlord further claimed that the carpets required a general clean because of food smells and embedded food. Her photographs were unable to show this and the tenant denied it. For the tenant to be liable for the carpet cleaning, the landlord would need to show that the dirtiness of the carpet was beyond fair wear and tear. I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that she has done so.
It is appropriate that the landlord be reimbursed for one hour at $50.00 per hour for trying to remove the stains. This is better viewed as damage repair rather than cleaning.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of a small area of garden at the rear of the property that had not been weeded and left in a reasonably tidy condition. It is appropriate that the landlord be compensated for an hour’s labour which includes the disposal of the green waste.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4631293 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4631293 — Cleanliness

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