What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4757294 about?

The tribunal order states: Maranata Semau and Semau Faapopo must pay [The landlord/s] $3,278.62

How much money was awarded in case 4757294?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Power Bills: $1,330.62 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,908.58 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $263.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4757294?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4757294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10241880-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4757294 about?

The tribunal order states: Maranata Semau and Semau Faapopo must pay [The landlord/s] $3,278.62

How much money was awarded in case 4757294?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Power Bills: $1,330.62 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,908.58 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $263.98 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4757294?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4757294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10241880-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4757294 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4757294 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4757294 — net $3,278.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 November 2023	$2,908.58	Rent arrears to 10 November 2023
Water rates	$263.98	Water rates
Power bills	$1,330.62	Power bills
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,278.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,278.62

Claims and awards for application 4757294 — net $3,278.62 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 10 November 2023

Amount: $2,908.58
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 10 November 2023

Water rates

Amount: $263.98
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Power bills

Amount: $1,330.62
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Power bills

Cleaning

Amount: $75.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Missing Chattels — Filing fee

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

Maranata Semau and Semau Faapopo must pay [The landlord/s] $3,278.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 10 November 2023$2,908.58 Water rates$263.98 Power bills$1,330.62 Cleaning$75.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,598.62 Bond$1,320.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,278.62

Reasons

The hearing took place on 4 th April 2024.
[The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord, while the tenants, Mr. and Mrs. Semau, attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water arrears, power arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent, water rates and electricity?

Mr and Mrs Semau said in the hearing that they were not responsible for paying the rent and other outgoings. According to them, the church treasurer, Mr Vincent Faraimo, was the one managing the finances and paying rent, water and electricity invoices. To support their claim, they called Mr Vincent Faraimo as a witness.
I have reviewed the evidence provided by the landlord with Mr. Faraimo, who confirms that the arrears are accurate. I did not inquire about the reason behind Mr. Faraimo's inability to pay the arrears since it was not relevant to the case. The primary focus was to determine whether or not Mr Faraimo agreed with [The landlord’s representative]'s claims regarding the arrears.
The tenancy ended on 10 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records, water rates and electricity invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.

Did Mr and Mrs Semau leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

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). 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).
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 required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.
I have carefully reviewed both the pre-tenancy and post-tenancy reports and concluded that I do not agree with [The landlord’s representative]'s assertion that Mr. and Mrs. Semau did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The evidence before me supports the conclusion that Mr. and Mrs. Semau did clean the premises before they reverted possession to the landlord.
However, Mr. and Mrs. Semau could have done slightly more to ensure the cleanliness of the premises. For instance, they could have cleaned the insides of the drawers and mopped the floor more thoroughly in areas where stains were visible.
Given the circumstances, I do not consider [The landlord’s representative]'s claim for cleaning costs justified. Therefore, I propose that Mr. and Mrs. Semau contribute $75 to the cleaning costs, as it is, in my view, a fair and appropriate amount.

Did Mr and Mrs Semau responsible for the missing chattels?

[The landlord’s representative] claimed that Mr and Mrs Semau were responsible for the missing chattels at the end of the tenancy.: a. A double bed; b. Chair; c. Stove; d. Microwave; and e. Fridge
[The landlord’s representative] relied on the pre-tenancy and post-tenancy reports to support his claim.
However, Mr and Mrs Semau argued that when they moved in, the previous tenant was still there and offered them the chattels, including the bed, stove, fridge, and other items. Mr Semau believed these chattels belonged to the previous tenant, not the landlord. Mr and Mrs Semau said they had their own furnishings and did not require them.
Mr and Mrs Semau said the microwave was broken during the tenancy, so he disposed of it. The landlord or his agent had not informed him that these chattels belonged to the landlord, so he did not know that he should not have allowed the previous tenant to remove them or dispose of the microwave.
In summary, Mr and Mrs Semau submitted that there was a misunderstanding regarding the ownership of the chattels. They acted reasonably based on the information they had at the time and should not be held responsible for removing the landlord's property that they did not know belonged to the landlord.
The landlord has the burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr and Mrs Semau were aware of the chattels included in the tenancy.
[The landlord’s representative]'s argument relied on the pre-tenancy, and post- tenancy reports that the chattels that were missing at the end of the tenancy were insufficient. This is because Mr and Mrs Semau did not accept that the landlord or [The landlord’s representative] had informed them that those chattels belonged to the landlord.
What is fatally lacking in [The landlord’s representative]'s argument is the absence of a signed checklist for chattels in the tenancy agreement at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that Mr. and Mrs. Semau were aware of the missing chattels that belonged to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy, as there is no evidence that they acknowledged which chattels were included in the tenancy agreement. It is more likely than not that the previous tenant offered the missing chattels to the Semaus, but they declined to keep them.
Accordingly, [The landlord’s representative]’s claim for missing chattels is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claims I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded in proceedings I must grant the name suppression application. Addendum
I raised concerns about the lawfulness of the premises with [The landlord’s representative]. In response, [The landlord’s representative] assured me that the premises is lawful for residential purposes.
Furthermore, he stated that the landlord would be able to provide the necessary evidence to the Tribunal by the end of business day on 5 April 2024.
The Registry will place the evidence on file once the evidence is received.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4757294 — net $3,278.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 November 2023	$2,908.58	Rent arrears to 10 November 2023
Water rates	$263.98	Water rates
Power bills	$1,330.62	Power bills
Cleaning	$75.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,278.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,278.62

Claims and awards for application 4757294 — net $3,278.62 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 10 November 2023

Amount: $2,908.58
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 10 November 2023

Water rates

Amount: $263.98
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Power bills

Amount: $1,330.62
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Power bills

Cleaning

Amount: $75.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Missing Chattels — Filing fee

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

Maranata Semau and Semau Faapopo must pay [The landlord/s] $3,278.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 10 November 2023$2,908.58 Water rates$263.98 Power bills$1,330.62 Cleaning$75.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,598.62 Bond$1,320.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,278.62

Reasons

The hearing took place on 4 th April 2024.
[The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord, while the tenants, Mr. and Mrs. Semau, attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water arrears, power arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent, water rates and electricity?

Mr and Mrs Semau said in the hearing that they were not responsible for paying the rent and other outgoings. According to them, the church treasurer, Mr Vincent Faraimo, was the one managing the finances and paying rent, water and electricity invoices. To support their claim, they called Mr Vincent Faraimo as a witness.
I have reviewed the evidence provided by the landlord with Mr. Faraimo, who confirms that the arrears are accurate. I did not inquire about the reason behind Mr. Faraimo's inability to pay the arrears since it was not relevant to the case. The primary focus was to determine whether or not Mr Faraimo agreed with [The landlord’s representative]'s claims regarding the arrears.
The tenancy ended on 10 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records, water rates and electricity invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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.

Did Mr and Mrs Semau leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

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). 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).
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 required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.
I have carefully reviewed both the pre-tenancy and post-tenancy reports and concluded that I do not agree with [The landlord’s representative]'s assertion that Mr. and Mrs. Semau did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The evidence before me supports the conclusion that Mr. and Mrs. Semau did clean the premises before they reverted possession to the landlord.
However, Mr. and Mrs. Semau could have done slightly more to ensure the cleanliness of the premises. For instance, they could have cleaned the insides of the drawers and mopped the floor more thoroughly in areas where stains were visible.
Given the circumstances, I do not consider [The landlord’s representative]'s claim for cleaning costs justified. Therefore, I propose that Mr. and Mrs. Semau contribute $75 to the cleaning costs, as it is, in my view, a fair and appropriate amount.

Did Mr and Mrs Semau responsible for the missing chattels?

[The landlord’s representative] claimed that Mr and Mrs Semau were responsible for the missing chattels at the end of the tenancy.: a. A double bed; b. Chair; c. Stove; d. Microwave; and e. Fridge
[The landlord’s representative] relied on the pre-tenancy and post-tenancy reports to support his claim.
However, Mr and Mrs Semau argued that when they moved in, the previous tenant was still there and offered them the chattels, including the bed, stove, fridge, and other items. Mr Semau believed these chattels belonged to the previous tenant, not the landlord. Mr and Mrs Semau said they had their own furnishings and did not require them.
Mr and Mrs Semau said the microwave was broken during the tenancy, so he disposed of it. The landlord or his agent had not informed him that these chattels belonged to the landlord, so he did not know that he should not have allowed the previous tenant to remove them or dispose of the microwave.
In summary, Mr and Mrs Semau submitted that there was a misunderstanding regarding the ownership of the chattels. They acted reasonably based on the information they had at the time and should not be held responsible for removing the landlord's property that they did not know belonged to the landlord.
The landlord has the burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr and Mrs Semau were aware of the chattels included in the tenancy.
[The landlord’s representative]'s argument relied on the pre-tenancy, and post- tenancy reports that the chattels that were missing at the end of the tenancy were insufficient. This is because Mr and Mrs Semau did not accept that the landlord or [The landlord’s representative] had informed them that those chattels belonged to the landlord.
What is fatally lacking in [The landlord’s representative]'s argument is the absence of a signed checklist for chattels in the tenancy agreement at the commencement of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that Mr. and Mrs. Semau were aware of the missing chattels that belonged to the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy, as there is no evidence that they acknowledged which chattels were included in the tenancy agreement. It is more likely than not that the previous tenant offered the missing chattels to the Semaus, but they declined to keep them.
Accordingly, [The landlord’s representative]’s claim for missing chattels is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claims I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded in proceedings I must grant the name suppression application. Addendum
I raised concerns about the lawfulness of the premises with [The landlord’s representative]. In response, [The landlord’s representative] assured me that the premises is lawful for residential purposes.
Furthermore, he stated that the landlord would be able to provide the necessary evidence to the Tribunal by the end of business day on 5 April 2024.
The Registry will place the evidence on file once the evidence is received.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4757294 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4757294 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, water rates and electricity?

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

Did Mr and Mrs Semau leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did Mr and Mrs Semau responsible for the missing chattels?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, water rates and electricity?

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

Did Mr and Mrs Semau leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Did Mr and Mrs Semau responsible for the missing chattels?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions