What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4756709 about?

The tribunal order states: Yashar Najafiyouni and Faezeh Hatami must pay [The landlord/s] $925.52

How much money was awarded in case 4756709?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $47.14 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,200.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756709?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10777101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4756709 about?

The tribunal order states: Yashar Najafiyouni and Faezeh Hatami must pay [The landlord/s] $925.52

How much money was awarded in case 4756709?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $47.14 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,200.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756709?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10777101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 308, 145 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4756709 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756709 — net $925.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 02/06/2023 to 12/11/2023	$47.14	Rent arrears from 02/06/2023 to 12/11/2023
Previous order application 4542997 dated 29/05/2023 rent arrears to 01/06/2023	$2,200.44	Previous order application 4542997 dated 29/05/2023 rent arrears to 01/06/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Carpet cleaning	$90.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Repair dent in wall	$120.00	Repair dent in wall
Replacement of security tag	$57.50	Replacement of security tag
Net award	$925.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$925.52

Order

Yashar Najafiyouni and Faezeh Hatami must pay [The landlord/s] $925.52 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
This order incorporates the Tribunal’s previous order made on 29 May 2023 under application 4542997 (for rent arrears to 01 June 2023 and reimbursement of the filing fee) for enforcement purposes.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place on 19 August 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord also applied for the replacement cost of a water cooler and keys to the premises. Following the hearing, the tenant returned these items. The claims for these items are withdrawn.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 12 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s position is that rent was in arrears due to a communication from the landlord to Work and Income. The landlord denied communicating with Work and Income. The tenant did not provide any evidence of communication between the landlord and Work and Income. In any event, the tenant’s arrangements with Work and Income are separate to his arrangements with the landlord.
This claim is proved.

Is the tenant liable for cleaning of the premises?

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
The onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The landlord asserts that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and has provided an invoice of $260 (inclusive of GST) for “general house cleaning”.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs showing that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy. The landlord also provided photographs taken after the tenant had vacated the premises showing the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant said he did clean the property and provided some photographs to support this. The tenant further says he should not be responsible for all of the cleaning costs because he was in a rush to move out of the premises and had limited time to clean the property. The tenant also said that if the landlord was not satisfied with the cleaning of the property, the landlord should have advised him and given him an opportunity to return to the premises and carry out further cleaning.
The obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean is mandatory. A landlord is not obliged to allow a tenant an opportunity to return to the premises after the tenancy has terminated to conduct further cleaning. I do not accept the reasons given by the tenant as to why he should not be liable for the cleaning. That said I find the cleaning fee of $260 (inclusive GST) is excessive. At a notional fee of $50 per hour this amounts to just over 5 hours labour. I consider that 3 hours of professional cleaning would have returned the premises to a “reasonably clean and tidy” condition.
I award $150.00 (inclusive of GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant liable for the security tag?

Section 40(1)(e) of the RTA provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices.
The landlord asserts that the tenant failed to return a security tag. The landlord has provided an invoice for a replacement security tag of $57.50 (inclusive of GST).
The tenant says he should not be responsible for the cost of the security tag because it stolen from his vehicle when it was on the property.
The obligation to return all security keys and devices is mandatory. 1
I award $57.50 (inclusive of GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Where the damage is careless, section 49B of the RTA applies. If the damage is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
The landlord said that the premises were insured but with a $5,000 excess.
The landlord has claimed that the tenant damaged the property be making a dent in a wall and a stain on the carpet. The landlord has provided an invoice of $90 (inclusive of GST) for carpet stain removal and $120 (inclusive of GST) for repairing the dent in the wall.
The photographs in the pre-tenancy report do not show this damage and the damage is not recorded in the written section of the report. The tenant conceded that the dent in the wall and the stain to the carpet occurred during the tenancy. He said that the damage to the wall occurred when removing the bed. The tenant said he does not know how the carpet was stained. The tenant said he should have had an opportunity to return to the property and clean the stain.
I find that the damage to the wall and to the carpet was careless. As set out above, the landlord is not obliged to allow the tenant an opportunity to clean the property after the tenancy has terminated.
The amounts ordered are proved and I award $90 (inclusive of GST) for the carpet stain removal and $120 (inclusive of GST) for repairing the dent in the wall.
The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
[The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim. Therefore, I must grant the application for suppression and order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756709 — net $925.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 02/06/2023 to 12/11/2023	$47.14	Rent arrears from 02/06/2023 to 12/11/2023
Previous order application 4542997 dated 29/05/2023 rent arrears to 01/06/2023	$2,200.44	Previous order application 4542997 dated 29/05/2023 rent arrears to 01/06/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Carpet cleaning	$90.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Repair dent in wall	$120.00	Repair dent in wall
Replacement of security tag	$57.50	Replacement of security tag
Net award	$925.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$925.52

Order

Yashar Najafiyouni and Faezeh Hatami must pay [The landlord/s] $925.52 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
This order incorporates the Tribunal’s previous order made on 29 May 2023 under application 4542997 (for rent arrears to 01 June 2023 and reimbursement of the filing fee) for enforcement purposes.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place on 19 August 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord also applied for the replacement cost of a water cooler and keys to the premises. Following the hearing, the tenant returned these items. The claims for these items are withdrawn.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 12 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s position is that rent was in arrears due to a communication from the landlord to Work and Income. The landlord denied communicating with Work and Income. The tenant did not provide any evidence of communication between the landlord and Work and Income. In any event, the tenant’s arrangements with Work and Income are separate to his arrangements with the landlord.
This claim is proved.

Is the tenant liable for cleaning of the premises?

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
The onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The landlord asserts that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and has provided an invoice of $260 (inclusive of GST) for “general house cleaning”.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs showing that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy. The landlord also provided photographs taken after the tenant had vacated the premises showing the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant said he did clean the property and provided some photographs to support this. The tenant further says he should not be responsible for all of the cleaning costs because he was in a rush to move out of the premises and had limited time to clean the property. The tenant also said that if the landlord was not satisfied with the cleaning of the property, the landlord should have advised him and given him an opportunity to return to the premises and carry out further cleaning.
The obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean is mandatory. A landlord is not obliged to allow a tenant an opportunity to return to the premises after the tenancy has terminated to conduct further cleaning. I do not accept the reasons given by the tenant as to why he should not be liable for the cleaning. That said I find the cleaning fee of $260 (inclusive GST) is excessive. At a notional fee of $50 per hour this amounts to just over 5 hours labour. I consider that 3 hours of professional cleaning would have returned the premises to a “reasonably clean and tidy” condition.
I award $150.00 (inclusive of GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant liable for the security tag?

Section 40(1)(e) of the RTA provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices.
The landlord asserts that the tenant failed to return a security tag. The landlord has provided an invoice for a replacement security tag of $57.50 (inclusive of GST).
The tenant says he should not be responsible for the cost of the security tag because it stolen from his vehicle when it was on the property.
The obligation to return all security keys and devices is mandatory. 1
I award $57.50 (inclusive of GST) for this claim.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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.
Where the damage is careless, section 49B of the RTA applies. If the damage is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
The landlord said that the premises were insured but with a $5,000 excess.
The landlord has claimed that the tenant damaged the property be making a dent in a wall and a stain on the carpet. The landlord has provided an invoice of $90 (inclusive of GST) for carpet stain removal and $120 (inclusive of GST) for repairing the dent in the wall.
The photographs in the pre-tenancy report do not show this damage and the damage is not recorded in the written section of the report. The tenant conceded that the dent in the wall and the stain to the carpet occurred during the tenancy. He said that the damage to the wall occurred when removing the bed. The tenant said he does not know how the carpet was stained. The tenant said he should have had an opportunity to return to the property and clean the stain.
I find that the damage to the wall and to the carpet was careless. As set out above, the landlord is not obliged to allow the tenant an opportunity to clean the property after the tenancy has terminated.
The amounts ordered are proved and I award $90 (inclusive of GST) for the carpet stain removal and $120 (inclusive of GST) for repairing the dent in the wall.
The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
[The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim. Therefore, I must grant the application for suppression and order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756709 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 308, 145 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756709 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 308, 145 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant liable for cleaning of the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the security tag?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant liable for cleaning of the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the security tag?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions