What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4636052 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4636052?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4636052?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4636052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9394786-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4636052 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4636052?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4636052?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4636052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9394786-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4636052 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4636052 — net $640.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Garden work and green waste removal	$280.00	Garden work and green waste removal
Carpet Cleaning	$280.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$640.00
Bond	$1,650.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$640.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $640.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,010.00
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $640.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the refund of the bond. Standard of proof
In considering the landlord’s claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that his 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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. In particular, he complained that: a. The vinyl in the kitchen was sticky and damaged. b. The shower cabinet, bath and toilet were not adequately cleaned. c. The garden was overgrown with weeds. d. The lounge carpet had been stained by food or drink. e. The oven had not been cleaned.
The landlord provided some photographic evidence. The tenant provided video evidence of the state of the property at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant accepted that the stains in the carpet were caused during the tenancy by his children.
The landlord claimed that he had been told that it was not possible to remove the stains and he was seeking the insurance excess for the replacement of the carpet. He also also claimed that this carpet had sustained minor damage in front of the fire.
The landlord did not provide any expert or professional evidence in support of this claim that the carpet required replacement and could not be expertly cleaned, or that the damaged areas could be repaired with patches of the same carpet. Nor could the landlord provide evidence that the carpet in front of the fire was not damaged at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant denied liability for this damage.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant should be liable for any more than the costs of specialist treatment of the carpet for the stains. I have awarded a sum that the Tribunal regularly sees charged by reputable companies for such treatment.
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” (see s45(1)(a) RTA) 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.
The tenant’s video at the start of the tenancy showed that the outside area was free from weeds. The landlord provided photographic evidence that the garden areas were largely covered in weeds. It is appropriate that the landlord be compensated for the work in weeding the gardens and disposing of the green waste.
While the landlord’s claim did not specify or give a breakdown of the costs which he and his work associates incurred, he explained what was involved at the hearing and I have awarded a sum for eight hours labour at $30.00 per hour and $40.00 to cover the green waste disposal. These amounts are in line with invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees for such work.
The landlord provided a photograph showing that the clear shower walls were opaque with what may have been either soap or mineral deposits. The tenant’s video from the start of the tenancy provided only fleeting shots of the shower. It did indicate some clouding but not to the extent shown by the landlord’s photographic evidence.
The landlord’s evidence photographic evidence regarding the stove top, oven and bath were inconclusive. It did not persuade me that they were not reasonably clean.
The tenant produced evidence of having paid an independent cleaner to clean the property at the end of the tenancy and he confirmed that he came back to clean the floor of the kitchen again after the end of the tenancy.
It is appropriate that the landlord be reimbursed for the cleaning of the toilet and the shower where the landlord’s evidence was more persuasive.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was carelessly caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet in the lounge was damaged beyond repair. b. A set of curtains were damaged beyond repair. c. The vinyl in the kitchen was damaged beyond repair.
I have dealt with the landlord’s claim in relation to the carpet above.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that a set of curtains had an area of some form of staining on them.
The landlord was unable to provide evidence that the curtains were undamaged at the start of the tenancy. Nor was the landlord able to provide independent evidence that the stains could not be removed by cleaning.
The tenant denied liability for the damage.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, I am not persuaded that the tenant caused the damage to the curtains, nor that they require replacement. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord advised that he believed some sort of chemical reaction, perhaps caused by a cleaning agent, had caused the vinyl flooring to exude a white substance and deteriorate.
He provided some photographic evidence in support of his claim but no evidence from a qualified or independent person confirming the damage, that it was permanent or that it required the replacement of the vinyl.
The tenant denied that the vinyl was damaged or that he caused it.
I am not persuaded that the damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy and that it was not the result of fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim in relation to the vinyl is dismissed.
As both parties have had success in their claims, each party should bear their own filing fee.
For the same reason, it is appropriate that both parties have name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4636052 — net $640.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Garden work and green waste removal	$280.00	Garden work and green waste removal
Carpet Cleaning	$280.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$640.00
Bond	$1,650.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$640.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $640.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,010.00
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $640.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the refund of the bond. Standard of proof
In considering the landlord’s claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that his 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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. In particular, he complained that: a. The vinyl in the kitchen was sticky and damaged. b. The shower cabinet, bath and toilet were not adequately cleaned. c. The garden was overgrown with weeds. d. The lounge carpet had been stained by food or drink. e. The oven had not been cleaned.
The landlord provided some photographic evidence. The tenant provided video evidence of the state of the property at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant accepted that the stains in the carpet were caused during the tenancy by his children.
The landlord claimed that he had been told that it was not possible to remove the stains and he was seeking the insurance excess for the replacement of the carpet. He also also claimed that this carpet had sustained minor damage in front of the fire.
The landlord did not provide any expert or professional evidence in support of this claim that the carpet required replacement and could not be expertly cleaned, or that the damaged areas could be repaired with patches of the same carpet. Nor could the landlord provide evidence that the carpet in front of the fire was not damaged at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant denied liability for this damage.
I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant should be liable for any more than the costs of specialist treatment of the carpet for the stains. I have awarded a sum that the Tribunal regularly sees charged by reputable companies for such treatment.
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” (see s45(1)(a) RTA) 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.
The tenant’s video at the start of the tenancy showed that the outside area was free from weeds. The landlord provided photographic evidence that the garden areas were largely covered in weeds. It is appropriate that the landlord be compensated for the work in weeding the gardens and disposing of the green waste.
While the landlord’s claim did not specify or give a breakdown of the costs which he and his work associates incurred, he explained what was involved at the hearing and I have awarded a sum for eight hours labour at $30.00 per hour and $40.00 to cover the green waste disposal. These amounts are in line with invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees for such work.
The landlord provided a photograph showing that the clear shower walls were opaque with what may have been either soap or mineral deposits. The tenant’s video from the start of the tenancy provided only fleeting shots of the shower. It did indicate some clouding but not to the extent shown by the landlord’s photographic evidence.
The landlord’s evidence photographic evidence regarding the stove top, oven and bath were inconclusive. It did not persuade me that they were not reasonably clean.
The tenant produced evidence of having paid an independent cleaner to clean the property at the end of the tenancy and he confirmed that he came back to clean the floor of the kitchen again after the end of the tenancy.
It is appropriate that the landlord be reimbursed for the cleaning of the toilet and the shower where the landlord’s evidence was more persuasive.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was carelessly caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet in the lounge was damaged beyond repair. b. A set of curtains were damaged beyond repair. c. The vinyl in the kitchen was damaged beyond repair.
I have dealt with the landlord’s claim in relation to the carpet above.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that a set of curtains had an area of some form of staining on them.
The landlord was unable to provide evidence that the curtains were undamaged at the start of the tenancy. Nor was the landlord able to provide independent evidence that the stains could not be removed by cleaning.
The tenant denied liability for the damage.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, I am not persuaded that the tenant caused the damage to the curtains, nor that they require replacement. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord advised that he believed some sort of chemical reaction, perhaps caused by a cleaning agent, had caused the vinyl flooring to exude a white substance and deteriorate.
He provided some photographic evidence in support of his claim but no evidence from a qualified or independent person confirming the damage, that it was permanent or that it required the replacement of the vinyl.
The tenant denied that the vinyl was damaged or that he caused it.
I am not persuaded that the damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy and that it was not the result of fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim in relation to the vinyl is dismissed.
As both parties have had success in their claims, each party should bear their own filing fee.
For the same reason, it is appropriate that both parties have name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4636052 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4636052 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions