What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755390 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $75.28 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4755390?

Cleaning: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $310.92 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $625.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755390?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Lost Rent.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755390?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10117196-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755390 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $75.28 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4755390?

Cleaning: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $310.92 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $540.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $625.36 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755390?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Lost Rent.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755390?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10117196-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4755390 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755390 — net $75.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$759.00	Cleaning
Cleaning: curtains and blind	$310.92	Cleaning: curtains and blind
Rubbish removal	$625.36	Rubbish removal
Lost rent	$540.00	Lost rent
Net award	$75.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.28

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4755390 — net $75.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$759.00	Cleaning
Cleaning: curtains and blind	$310.92	Cleaning: curtains and blind
Rubbish removal	$625.36	Rubbish removal
Lost rent	$540.00	Lost rent
Net award	$75.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$75.28

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $75.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] appeared for the landlord. [The tenant/s] appeared and was supported by [The tenant’s support person]. There was no appearance by the other tenant.
This is a joint tenancy that commenced on 07 October 2022. The tenant’s relationship broke down leading them to give notice to terminate the tenancy on 06 October 2023. [The tenant/s], whom I will refer to in this decision as the tenant, then vacated the property, leaving the other tenant in sole occupation, and did not return until the end of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy a dispute arose surrounding costs associated with cleaning and damage. On 04 December 2023 both parties filed applications with the Tribunal.
The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property, including the grounds, in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and failed to remove all rubbish, and is liable for damage and lost rent. The tenant disputes some of these claims but dispute others.
The onus of proving a claim will rest with the party who makes it. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
The tenant has included a claim that the property failed to meet the healthy homes standards concerning moisture and dampness. There is insufficient evidence to support the claim and it is dismissed. Cleaning, lawn maintenance, and rubbish removal.
The landlord has produced photographs showing the property at the start and end of the tenancy. The landlord states that while conducting viewings with prospective tenants they discovered the property, was in their opinion, not being maintained in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord states that they informed the tenant that they required the property to be returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition so that they could offer it for rent soon after the tenancy ended. The landlord states that this did not occur and that the tenant failed to leave the property, including the lawns, in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord states that they were unable to arrange cleaning until 23 October 2023, which was three days after new tenants where due to move in on 20 October 2023. In order to present the property in a reasonably condition for the incoming tenant, who had young children, citing health and safety reasons, the landlord conducted “cursory” cleaning of the bathroom, toilet, and kitchen bench tops. The property was then cleaned in its entirety by professional cleaners on 23 October 2023.
The landlord is claiming $759.00 for cleaning by professional cleaners on 23 October 2023, $155.25 for their own cleaning on 20 October 2023, and $60.00 for lawn mowing on 12 and 26 October 2023.
The landlord claims that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish and is claiming $625.36 for removal and disposal.
The tenant believed that the remaining tenant had cleaned and removed rubbish, but after seeing the photographs accepted that this may not have been the case, or if any cleaning had in fact been done, it had not returned the property to at least the same condition it was at the start.
However, the tenant questions the liability for the cleaning conducted by the landlord personally submitting that the professional cleaners had then gone on to clean, and had invoiced for cleaning, the entire property.
The tenant denies that the lawns had not been left in a reasonable condition, producing an invoice showing, as previously agreed with the landlord to have the lawns mown fortnightly, that they had been mown on 02 October 2023.
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) of the Act.
The Act 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. 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 tenant has accepted liability for the general cleaning of the property and rubbish removal. I have considered the evidence including the photographs. I am satisfied that the amounts claimed are reasonable, and accordingly I award them in full. I decline to award compensation for the pre cleaning conducted by the landlord themselves. On the material before me it is more likely than not that these areas were then cleaned again by the professional cleaners. I accept the tenant’s submissions that doing so would amount constitute double compensation.
Regarding the lawns. On the evidence, I am not satisfied that it was left in worse condition that at the commencement of the tenancy. There are in my view in much the same condition. The claim for lawn mowing is dismissed. Curtains
The agreement allowed the tenant to keep two parrots in a cage outside. The landlord has produced photographs showing what they claim is parrot droppings on the backs of curtains in the lounge and dining room. A curtain contractor recommended that all the curtains be removed and cleaned. The invoice produced is for $597.61. The invoice refers to the curtain “drops”. The parrot droppings affected five curtain drops in the dining room, and four drops in the lounge. The cost of cleaning each curtain drop was $31.30. The landlord also states that other curtains were affected by mould and mildew. The landlord has produced photographs of two windows which they state show mould. There are however no photographs of mould or mildew on the back of any curtains. The claim also includes $29.70 to remove and clean and venetian blind in the kitchen soiled by fly poo and grease.
The tenant states that although the parrots were usually housed outside, there had been occasions when the other tenant had brought them inside.
On the evidence, I am staffed that the venetian blind was not left reasonably clean and required cleaning. I am satisfied that the backs of nine curtains drops were not left reasonably clean and that the substance on the curtains is more likely than not parrot droppings. As stated, there are no photographs of mould or mildew on the backs of any curtains, and I am unable to award the balance sought. I award $29.70 to clean the blind, and $281.70 to clean the nine drops, a total of $310.92. Damage
The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to a light switch and power point in two bedrooms. There is a close up photograph of the light switch showing a corner missing. There is no photograph of the power point. The landlord states that the electrician who repaired the light switch then tested the circuit and discovered that the power point was not working. The landlord states that neither was matter was reported by the tenant. The landlord is claiming $172.97 to repair both.
The tenant cannot recall when or how the light switch may have been damaged. The property built in the 1970’s, appears to retain many of its period features. The tenant states that while some of the light’s switches had been updated that the switch concerned was likely an original. The tenant submits that the damage was likely due to fair wear and tear. Concerning the power point, the tenant states that around May 2023, they reported a fault with it. An electrician sent by the landlord stated that there had been an overload and a circuit breaker had tripped. However, the source of the trip was not determined. The tenant states that occasionally, using a vacuum in the room and using the power point, the breaker would trip affecting the power point.
The landlord also claims that the tenant is liable for damage to the glass panel in the oven door. There is no photograph of the panel in it damaged state. The landlord states that the glass panel in the oven door is of a type that can be removed for cleaning. The landlord states that during the cleaning process, the professional cleaner broke it. The claim to replace the panel is $284.00. The landlord argues that had the tenant left to the oven reasonably clean, the damage would not have occurred. However, the tenant questions their liability for the act or omission of the cleaner.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 also liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the damage to the light switch is more than fair wear and tear. Regarding the power point, I am not satisfied that this is damage caused by the tenant. The claim is dismissed.
Regarding the claim for the panel in the oven door, in McKay v Moore (No1) DC Napier, MAJ1205/90, 24 October 1990, the Court stated that liability exists for reasonably foreseeable losses flowing from the breach (of the tenancy agreement), and that a reasonably foreseeable loss is one that has arisen naturally from the breach or a loss within reasonable contemplation of the parties at the commencement of the tenancy. While the tenant is liable, and compensation has been awarded for not leaving the oven in a reasonably clean condition, I am not satisfied that the damage occurring at the hands of the cleaner was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach. The claim for the glass panel is dismissed. Lost rent.
The landlord is claiming two weeks lost rent, from 07 October 2023 to 19 October 2023, due to the inability to re let the property within a reasonable time because of the tenant’s breaches. The landlord states that a portion of any compensation awarded will go to the new tenant for enduring a couple of weeks without curtains and an oven.
The issue in this claim is whether the loss in rental income was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tenant failing to leave the property, including the curtains, reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish.
The landlord states despite conducting a several viewings before the end of the tenancy, none resulted in an offer to enter into an agreement. Given the high demand for rental properties in the area, the landlord believes this was solely due to the poor state of cleanliness. The landlord states they gave the tenant a clear message about their obligations. The landlord states that they also gave the tenant until 11 October 2023 to return to the property and conduct cleaning. After that the landlord would complete the cleaning and seek compensation. A new tenant moved in on 20 October 2023, and the property was cleaned on 23 October 2023. The curtains were returned, and the oven door repaired sometime later.
This is not a case in which the delay in reletting the property has been caused by significant damage, and the need for significant repair, or by a state of uncleanliness requiring significant time and effort to remedy. In fact, the landlord was prepared to enter a new tenancy after conducting only a cursory clean. A prudent landlord must be cautious about allowing a tenant to return to a property after the tenancy has ended. In this case, I am satisfied that one weeks lost rent is reasonable. Any award beyond that, in my opinion, would not be solely based on any delay attributable to the actions of the tenant. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
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.
It is my opinion that both parties have been substantially successful either prosecuting or in defending the claims, and on that basis, I am satisfied there are grounds to order suppression of both party’s names and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755390 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755390 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions