How much money was awarded in case 4631530?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631530?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9217711-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4631530?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4631530?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4631530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9217711-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

34 Drumconnell Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4631530 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4631530 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4631530 — net $890.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Blind replacement	$690.00	Replace furnishings: Blind replacement
Cleaning: Contribution	$200.00	a contribution towards the cost of cleaning. I therefore order the tenants pay $200.00 to the landlord for cleaning costs.
Net award	$890.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$890.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Rental Hq Limited As Agent For Girish Chaudhary & Sangeeta Rani $890.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to distribute the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately, apportioned as follows: Rental Hq Limited As Agent For Girish Chaudhary & Sangeeta Rani: $890.00 [The tenant/s]: $430.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted remotely. Carlie Walker appeared for the landlord and Girish Chaudhary was also on the call. Both tenants were on the call.

This was a continuation of previous hearings; and this decision should be read in conjunction with my previous orders dated 16 March 2023 and 28 June 2023.

On 16 March 2023 the Tribunal ordered: a. that this was a residential tenancy and the Tribunal accordingly had jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claims b. that a termination notice issued by the landlord was invalid and was set aside c. that a purported rent increase was unlawful and therefore the landlord must pay a $500.00 refund to the tenants d. work orders in relation to safe drinking water and extractor fan e. that the bond must be filed with the Bond Centre f. that a tenancy agreement should be signed and provided to the Tribunal

On 28 June 2023 the Tribunal found that the work orders and directions had been complied with. The Tribunal further ordered: a. That the landlord pay the tenants $1000.00 by way of compensation and exemplary damages for various established breaches b. That the landlord engage a suitably qualified plumber to confirm the water in the kitchenette was connected to a potable water supply

On 28 June 2023 the parties confirmed that the tenants had vacated the premises.

Today’s hearing also included a cross-application filed by the landlord in relation to vacated damages and compensation.

So, I will deal with the one outstanding tenant claim (water) and the landlord claims. Potable Water

As outlined in the two earlier decisions, a concern was raised by the tenants in relation to the water in the kitchenette.

The concerns raised were valid and the tenants had a right to be concerned, given that there was a warning label affixed to the kitchenette advising them that the water was unsafe to drink.

However, this issue has now been finally resolved.

The landlord has supplied a report from [plumber] dated 11 July 2023. That report confirms that a plumber has checked the water supply to the sink mixer in the kitchenette and that both hot and cold water supplies to this fixture are supplied from the Watercare reticulated supply.

The plumber confirms that there is a provision at the kitchenette for non-potable cold water (hence the warning label) but this is not in use and is capped off. That, in conjunction with the report from Aqualab provided previously, has reassured me that there is no cause for concern.

I am satisfied therefore that the landlord has not breached his obligations in relation to provision of a potable water supply.

It was disappointing that this took so long to resolve, and I do not criticise the tenants at all for raising this issue. On the face of it there was reason to be concerned and I am pleased that it has finally been sorted out so that future tenants will not have to deal with it. Blinds

The landlord requests that $690.00 be deducted from the bond for damage to blinds which was caused by the tenants.

The tenants have already agreed to this deduction and is it therefore ordered accordingly. Cleaning

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord says that the tenants left the premises very dirty and therefore a professional clean was required.

The claim is for $414.00 for a professional clean. An invoice dated 28 June 2023 from [cleaning company] has been provided.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).

Whether a premise is reasonably clean and tidy is of course a matter of judgment. People can have vastly differing standards of cleanliness and it is not the case that a tenant must leave a premise in perfect condition, only in reasonable condition.

Likewise, a tenant is not required to leave premises in such a condition that a new tenant can move in straight away. A realistic landlord’s business plan should, therefore, make allowances for this. A tenancy change-over is often used as an opportunity to carry out ongoing maintenance and repairs which are not the responsibility of the tenant.

Provided the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy, any cleaning undertaken over and above this is not the tenant’s responsibility and is part of the overall maintenance of the property.

I turn now to consider whether the landlord’s claim can succeed.

As this is an application by the landlord, it is for the landlord to prove on the balance of probabilities that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord has provided exit inspection photographs. In particular, there are close up shots of various areas including a greasy oven, a corner of the floor with dust and dead insects, a soap tray in the shower that is unclean, several marks on walls, dust and hair on a bathroom floor.

The landlord says that it took professional cleaners 8 hours to fully clean the premises.

The landlord also said that she provided the tenants with a checklist ahead of time reminding them of what needed to be done.

The tenants dispute the claim. They say that they did clean before they left. They also said that the landlord conducted an inspection one week prior to them leaving and advised them that things looked mostly ok but that a few areas needed cleaning. They said they did that cleaning and that they took a day off work to do so.

The tenants said that on their final day the landlord advised them that the property needed to be professionally cleaned. However, because they were leaving that day and she said the cleaning needed to be done by the time they left (i.e. that day), they did not have time to arrange that.

The landlord denies advising the tenants that a professional clean was required.

It is clear that professional cleaners were arranged by the landlord almost immediately, within a day or two of the tenant’s vacating the premises.

I have carefully reviewed the photographs provided by the landlord.

There were no photographs provided that showed the condition of the premises before the tenancy commenced.

Overall, the impression I am left with is that the property has mostly been left reasonably clean and tidy.

It is certainly not perfect. It is not necessarily an excellent cleaning job, but it is a reasonable one. Things are relatively tidy, and the premises seems to have been cleaned up to a point.

There are two main exceptions to my finding. That is, the oven and the hob do not appear to have been cleaned at all. I also find that some of the marks on the walls were quite obvious and the tenants should have wiped those off before they left.

To that extent, I find that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.

I can see from the correspondence between the parties that the landlord did have an expectation that the cleaning should be done to a standard that would enable new tenants to move in straight away. She stated: “if the property was reasonably clean then there would have been no need to arrange cleaners”.

That is not quite correct. As noted above, it is not a requirement of the Act that the tenant clean a property to a perfect standard or even to a high standard. Many landlords as a matter of course would arrange professional cleaners prior to new tenants; this is a normal cost of doing business and is not a tenant responsibility.

However, in this case given the state of the oven in particular I consider that the tenants should be liable to make a contribution towards the cost of cleaning. I therefore order the tenants pay $200.00 to the landlord for cleaning costs. Suppression and Filing Fee

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties or is justified because of the parties conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

In this case, the tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings.

As there are no countervailing reasons not to do so, I therefore grant suppression of their names and identifying details.

The landlord did not apply for suppression.

In this case, because both parties have made applications and both have had some success in their respective claims, I make no order in respect of the filing fee; costs will lie where they fall. J R Smith 25 July 2023

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4631530 — net $890.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Blind replacement	$690.00	Replace furnishings: Blind replacement
Cleaning: Contribution	$200.00	a contribution towards the cost of cleaning. I therefore order the tenants pay $200.00 to the landlord for cleaning costs.
Net award	$890.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$890.00