What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4756714 about?

The tribunal order states: [The second respondent] is removed as a party to the claim.

How much money was awarded in case 4756714?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756714?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10748368-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4756714 about?

The tribunal order states: [The second respondent] is removed as a party to the claim.

How much money was awarded in case 4756714?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756714?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10748368-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Moa Avenue, Oneroa, Waiheke Island 1081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4756714 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756714. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
d respondent] is removed as a party to the claim. 2. The application is dismissed. 3. The Bond Centre is to refund the b	$700.00		d respondent] is removed as a party to the claim. 2. The application is dismissed. 3. The Bond Centre is to refund the b

Order

[The second respondent] is removed as a party to the claim.
The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond of $700.00 (bond no 5387016-005) to [The respondent].

Reasons

A hearing was held by teleconference. Mr Taukamo attended for the landlord, and [The respondent], one of the tenants, participated. The Tribunal was unable to contact the other tenant named in the application, [The second respondent]. Mr Taukamo indicated that the landlord has settled the claim with [The second respondent] and he was no longer required to attend the hearing.
In May 2023, [The respondent] and [The second respondent] (the tenants) entered a tenancy agreement with Puaao Hou Trust (the landlord) for the premises at 20 Moa Avenue, Oneroa, Waiheke Island 1081. The tenancy commenced on 12 May 2023 and ended on 12 November 2023. The rent was $600.00 per week and the bond was $1,200.00.
The landlord has filed an application for compensation for removal of garden waste and clean-up $603.83, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The following claims were made:
3% of petrol costs to the property $98.48
3% of sealink ferry fare, to and from the property $117.77
3% of green waste removal costs $142.72
3% of factored in labour costs $244.86
I begin by noting that the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not, correct.

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, 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 (“RTA”).
In this case, the landlord claims the sum of $603.83 on account of costs incurred to remove garden waste including travel (petrol and ferry fee) and labour costs. The landlord provided receipts, invoices and photographs in support of the claim.
The landlord explained that they went to the tenancy address on 18/19 November 2023 to clear the grounds for the new incoming tenants. They spent two days cleaning the place. The total cost of the clean-up, including travel, was $1,035.18. The cost was split between the tenants apportioned according to the share of rent paid. The sum of $603.80 was claimed against [The respondent] and the sum of $431.98 was claimed against [The second respondent] which has since settled.
The tenant disputed the landlord's claim, asserting that all waste on the property, except for a small pile of lawn clippings she left, belonged to the landlord. She also noted that Mr Taukamo had cut down a banana tree and left debris, and that the landlord had promised but failed to provide a weed eater to do the grass edging around the garage. During the final inspection on 12 November 2023, the tenant said the landlord raised no issues except potentially minor weeding and suggested the tenant sign the bond refund form with the refund amount to be confirmed later by Mr Taukamo, who was absent from the final inspection. The tenant was concerned about this arrangement, a concern confirmed by witness [The Witness] from Waiheke Budgeting. However, [The Winess] was not present at the final inspection nor she view the property when the tenant vacated. The tenant was willing to address the small pile of clippings and grass edging but felt the landlord's claim was excessive and that travel costs were unnecessary, as a local lawnmowing contractor could have done the job more cheaply.
When a tenancy ends a landlord can usually expect that there will be some work to do to bring the premises up to a standard suitable for new tenants, for sale, or self-occupation.
There is no rule that a tenant must leave the premises in a spotless condition that would enable a new tenant, or somebody else, to occupy the premises as soon as the old tenant moves out. The standard set by the RTA is "reasonably" clean and tidy and this does not mean "spotless” or “immaculate”.
I note the contradictory evidence of the parties regarding the issues raised by this claim. I further note the landlord has the burden of proof placed on them to prove their claim to the required standard.
Given the conflicting views, and lack of corroborating evidence, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the claim to the required standard that the tenant has breached her responsibilities on vacating the premises.
Even if I accept from the limited photographic evidence provided that some green waste needed to be removed and some further weeding was required, this claim must be seen in the overall context of the cleanliness and tidiness of the premises at the end of the tenancy. 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.
I find the landlord has not proved that all the waste left at the tenancy belonged to the tenant. I accept the tenant's evidence that she spent a considerable amount of time cleaning the property at the end of the tenancy, including mowing the lawns and garden maintenance. She indicated that she would have done the edging and remove the small pile of grass clippings she left if that was what the landlord wanted but they had not been mentioned it to her. Regardless, I consider these issues fairly minor in the scheme of things and would not justify an award of compensation but best addressed as part of a “commercial clean” rather than a tenant’s effort. It is of course not unusual for a landlord to occasionally arrange a commercial clean, irrespective of the tenant’s efforts, as part of normal property maintenance. I also note that I would not have awarded the claim for travel costs (petrol and ferry fare) as damage claims must be sufficiently foreseeable or related to any breach. I consider that these additional costs relate to the particular location of the tenancy premises and are therefore the landlord's responsibility. Accordingly, the claim as a whole is not proved and is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has not been wholly successful with the claim, I do not order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord sought name suppression.
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
The landlord has not been wholly successful with the claim, therefore they are not entitled to an order for suppression as of right.
Taking into consideration the claim made against the tenant, which has not been established, I have ordered name suppression of the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756714. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
d respondent] is removed as a party to the claim. 2. The application is dismissed. 3. The Bond Centre is to refund the b	$700.00		d respondent] is removed as a party to the claim. 2. The application is dismissed. 3. The Bond Centre is to refund the b

Order

[The second respondent] is removed as a party to the claim.
The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond of $700.00 (bond no 5387016-005) to [The respondent].

Reasons

A hearing was held by teleconference. Mr Taukamo attended for the landlord, and [The respondent], one of the tenants, participated. The Tribunal was unable to contact the other tenant named in the application, [The second respondent]. Mr Taukamo indicated that the landlord has settled the claim with [The second respondent] and he was no longer required to attend the hearing.
In May 2023, [The respondent] and [The second respondent] (the tenants) entered a tenancy agreement with Puaao Hou Trust (the landlord) for the premises at 20 Moa Avenue, Oneroa, Waiheke Island 1081. The tenancy commenced on 12 May 2023 and ended on 12 November 2023. The rent was $600.00 per week and the bond was $1,200.00.
The landlord has filed an application for compensation for removal of garden waste and clean-up $603.83, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The following claims were made:
3% of petrol costs to the property $98.48
3% of sealink ferry fare, to and from the property $117.77
3% of green waste removal costs $142.72
3% of factored in labour costs $244.86
I begin by noting that the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not, correct.

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, 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 (“RTA”).
In this case, the landlord claims the sum of $603.83 on account of costs incurred to remove garden waste including travel (petrol and ferry fee) and labour costs. The landlord provided receipts, invoices and photographs in support of the claim.
The landlord explained that they went to the tenancy address on 18/19 November 2023 to clear the grounds for the new incoming tenants. They spent two days cleaning the place. The total cost of the clean-up, including travel, was $1,035.18. The cost was split between the tenants apportioned according to the share of rent paid. The sum of $603.80 was claimed against [The respondent] and the sum of $431.98 was claimed against [The second respondent] which has since settled.
The tenant disputed the landlord's claim, asserting that all waste on the property, except for a small pile of lawn clippings she left, belonged to the landlord. She also noted that Mr Taukamo had cut down a banana tree and left debris, and that the landlord had promised but failed to provide a weed eater to do the grass edging around the garage. During the final inspection on 12 November 2023, the tenant said the landlord raised no issues except potentially minor weeding and suggested the tenant sign the bond refund form with the refund amount to be confirmed later by Mr Taukamo, who was absent from the final inspection. The tenant was concerned about this arrangement, a concern confirmed by witness [The Witness] from Waiheke Budgeting. However, [The Winess] was not present at the final inspection nor she view the property when the tenant vacated. The tenant was willing to address the small pile of clippings and grass edging but felt the landlord's claim was excessive and that travel costs were unnecessary, as a local lawnmowing contractor could have done the job more cheaply.
When a tenancy ends a landlord can usually expect that there will be some work to do to bring the premises up to a standard suitable for new tenants, for sale, or self-occupation.
There is no rule that a tenant must leave the premises in a spotless condition that would enable a new tenant, or somebody else, to occupy the premises as soon as the old tenant moves out. The standard set by the RTA is "reasonably" clean and tidy and this does not mean "spotless” or “immaculate”.
I note the contradictory evidence of the parties regarding the issues raised by this claim. I further note the landlord has the burden of proof placed on them to prove their claim to the required standard.
Given the conflicting views, and lack of corroborating evidence, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the claim to the required standard that the tenant has breached her responsibilities on vacating the premises.
Even if I accept from the limited photographic evidence provided that some green waste needed to be removed and some further weeding was required, this claim must be seen in the overall context of the cleanliness and tidiness of the premises at the end of the tenancy. 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.
I find the landlord has not proved that all the waste left at the tenancy belonged to the tenant. I accept the tenant's evidence that she spent a considerable amount of time cleaning the property at the end of the tenancy, including mowing the lawns and garden maintenance. She indicated that she would have done the edging and remove the small pile of grass clippings she left if that was what the landlord wanted but they had not been mentioned it to her. Regardless, I consider these issues fairly minor in the scheme of things and would not justify an award of compensation but best addressed as part of a “commercial clean” rather than a tenant’s effort. It is of course not unusual for a landlord to occasionally arrange a commercial clean, irrespective of the tenant’s efforts, as part of normal property maintenance. I also note that I would not have awarded the claim for travel costs (petrol and ferry fare) as damage claims must be sufficiently foreseeable or related to any breach. I consider that these additional costs relate to the particular location of the tenancy premises and are therefore the landlord's responsibility. Accordingly, the claim as a whole is not proved and is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has not been wholly successful with the claim, I do not order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord sought name suppression.
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings.
The landlord has not been wholly successful with the claim, therefore they are not entitled to an order for suppression as of right.
Taking into consideration the claim made against the tenant, which has not been established, I have ordered name suppression of the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756714 — Cleanliness at 20 Moa Avenue, Oneroa, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756714 — Cleanliness at 20 Moa Avenue, Oneroa, Waiheke Island 1081

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions