What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4710350 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Baseden Property Management Limited Acting Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4710350?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710350?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9667088-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4710350 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Baseden Property Management Limited Acting Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4710350?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710350?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9667088-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4710350 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4710350 — net $800.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	ft behind by the tenants. In light of those findings, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for rubbish removal and $200.00 towards the rubbish skip hire.
Rubbish removal	$300.00	ft behind by the tenants. In light of those findings, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for rubbish removal and $200.00 towards the rubbish skip hire.
Rubbish removal: Skip Hire	$200.00	ht of those findings, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for rubbish removal and $200.00 towards the rubbish skip hire.
Net award	$800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$800.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Baseden Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Mr Jin $800.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 20 November 2023.
The premises are at a rural address, [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”). There is a tenancy agreement in place and also a land lease. The tenancy agreement relates to the house and curtilage. The landlord lease (over which the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction) is for the land surrounding that curtilage.
The tenancy commenced on 1 June 2023 and ended on 14 September 2023.
The landlord seeks compensation for ; • House cleaning. • Carpet cleaning. • Rubbish removal inclusive of skip hire.
The landlord application for lawn mowing was withdrawn during the course of the hearing.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). The tenant says that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state.
In an email to the landlord dated 25 June 2023, the tenants said that whilst the landlord did have the premises commercially cleaned at the start of the tenancy, the cleaner had left without completing the cleaning. The tenants said that the “ cleaner did as much as he was paid to do but couldn’t complete the clean and it would be done by us”.
No pre tenancy inspection report was provided in evidence.
A tenant is not required to leave premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of a tenancy (see Westwood v Western 1994 DCR 759).
The condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy is clear. The landlord provided photos which indicate that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord said that the cleaning was the only cleaning carried out between the end of this tenancy and the commencement of a new tenancy. The standard required of the tenant is reasonably clean and tidy. It is generally accepted that this is a lower standard than is required for the commencement of a new tenancy.
I have taken into account the tenant evidence of the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy, the photos provided by the landlord and the requirement that the premises only be left reasonably clean and tidy in setting the cleaning claim at $300.00.
The tenants were allowed to have a pet dog on the premises. The tenancy agreement provides that where a pet is allowed on the premises, the carpets must be commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s. 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonable condition, irrespective of the presence of a dog. 11 Act generally to apply despite contrary provisions (1) Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless— (a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or (b) the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. (2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by this Act. (3) Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.
What this means, is that the minimum expectations set out in the RTA will apply, even where that is not consistent with the written tenancy agreement. Those requirements of the RTA do not require commercial carpet cleaning, solely due to the presence of a dog.
The landlord as of right can waive any of his protections, but the tenant cannot. For completeness, the Tenancy Tribunal could permit departures from the RTA in any specific agreement, but in the circumstances of this case, no such departure has been permitted. In short, irrespective of what the written agreement says, the RTA applies with its necessary requirements
The usual rules relating to reasonably clean and tidy therefore remain. Did the carpets require commercial cleaning to bring them to the required standard. The photos provided by the landlord show some areas of staining. The tenants said that any staining had been as a result of the previous tenants having a cat. This had been raised in correspondence with the landlord.
The onus of proof in this matter is on the landlord. I am not persuaded that the evidence provided shows that it is more likely than not that any staining to the carpet was caused by the tenants and the application is dismissed.
The landlord seeks compensation of $690.00 for rubbish removal and $456.72 for a rubbish skip hire
The landlord said that the rubbish removed was specifically from the area of the house and curtilage and not the area covered under the land lease. The landlord referred to pots and a table . The landlord said that the items removed had not been present at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenants said that the pots had been present when they moved in and that the bulk of the items removed were from the “land lease” area. The only item which they accepted responsibility for was a shelving unit left behind.
The photos provided by the respective parties make it very difficult to ascertain whether the items shown are within the curtilage or the exterior ”land lease” area. Some photos have the house shown in close proximity. A lack of a pre tenancy report similarly does not assist in making a decision.
As best as I can ascertain, some of the items of rubbish are within the curtilage and I accept that some of those items have been left behind by the tenants. In light of those findings, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for rubbish removal and $200.00 towards the rubbish skip hire.
The tenant has applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful and suppression of the tenant details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4710350 — net $800.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	ft behind by the tenants. In light of those findings, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for rubbish removal and $200.00 towards the rubbish skip hire.
Rubbish removal	$300.00	ft behind by the tenants. In light of those findings, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for rubbish removal and $200.00 towards the rubbish skip hire.
Rubbish removal: Skip Hire	$200.00	ht of those findings, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for rubbish removal and $200.00 towards the rubbish skip hire.
Net award	$800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$800.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Baseden Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Mr Jin $800.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 20 November 2023.
The premises are at a rural address, [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”). There is a tenancy agreement in place and also a land lease. The tenancy agreement relates to the house and curtilage. The landlord lease (over which the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction) is for the land surrounding that curtilage.
The tenancy commenced on 1 June 2023 and ended on 14 September 2023.
The landlord seeks compensation for ; • House cleaning. • Carpet cleaning. • Rubbish removal inclusive of skip hire.
The landlord application for lawn mowing was withdrawn during the course of the hearing.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). The tenant says that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state.
In an email to the landlord dated 25 June 2023, the tenants said that whilst the landlord did have the premises commercially cleaned at the start of the tenancy, the cleaner had left without completing the cleaning. The tenants said that the “ cleaner did as much as he was paid to do but couldn’t complete the clean and it would be done by us”.
No pre tenancy inspection report was provided in evidence.
A tenant is not required to leave premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of a tenancy (see Westwood v Western 1994 DCR 759).
The condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy is clear. The landlord provided photos which indicate that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord said that the cleaning was the only cleaning carried out between the end of this tenancy and the commencement of a new tenancy. The standard required of the tenant is reasonably clean and tidy. It is generally accepted that this is a lower standard than is required for the commencement of a new tenancy.
I have taken into account the tenant evidence of the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy, the photos provided by the landlord and the requirement that the premises only be left reasonably clean and tidy in setting the cleaning claim at $300.00.
The tenants were allowed to have a pet dog on the premises. The tenancy agreement provides that where a pet is allowed on the premises, the carpets must be commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s. 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonable condition, irrespective of the presence of a dog. 11 Act generally to apply despite contrary provisions (1) Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless— (a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or (b) the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. (2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by this Act. (3) Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.
What this means, is that the minimum expectations set out in the RTA will apply, even where that is not consistent with the written tenancy agreement. Those requirements of the RTA do not require commercial carpet cleaning, solely due to the presence of a dog.
The landlord as of right can waive any of his protections, but the tenant cannot. For completeness, the Tenancy Tribunal could permit departures from the RTA in any specific agreement, but in the circumstances of this case, no such departure has been permitted. In short, irrespective of what the written agreement says, the RTA applies with its necessary requirements
The usual rules relating to reasonably clean and tidy therefore remain. Did the carpets require commercial cleaning to bring them to the required standard. The photos provided by the landlord show some areas of staining. The tenants said that any staining had been as a result of the previous tenants having a cat. This had been raised in correspondence with the landlord.
The onus of proof in this matter is on the landlord. I am not persuaded that the evidence provided shows that it is more likely than not that any staining to the carpet was caused by the tenants and the application is dismissed.
The landlord seeks compensation of $690.00 for rubbish removal and $456.72 for a rubbish skip hire
The landlord said that the rubbish removed was specifically from the area of the house and curtilage and not the area covered under the land lease. The landlord referred to pots and a table . The landlord said that the items removed had not been present at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenants said that the pots had been present when they moved in and that the bulk of the items removed were from the “land lease” area. The only item which they accepted responsibility for was a shelving unit left behind.
The photos provided by the respective parties make it very difficult to ascertain whether the items shown are within the curtilage or the exterior ”land lease” area. Some photos have the house shown in close proximity. A lack of a pre tenancy report similarly does not assist in making a decision.
As best as I can ascertain, some of the items of rubbish are within the curtilage and I accept that some of those items have been left behind by the tenants. In light of those findings, I order the tenant to pay $300.00 for rubbish removal and $200.00 towards the rubbish skip hire.
The tenant has applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful and suppression of the tenant details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710350 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710350 — 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