What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4758359?

The tribunal order states: Madeleine Fejfar, Anastasia Falkov, Arianna Simoni, Dixie Rose, Grace

How much money was awarded in case 4758359?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $162.50 awarded to landlord; Funds Received From Tenants Held In…: $117.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758359?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758359?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10088876-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4758359?

The tribunal order states: Madeleine Fejfar, Anastasia Falkov, Arianna Simoni, Dixie Rose, Grace

How much money was awarded in case 4758359?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $162.50 awarded to landlord; Funds Received From Tenants Held In…: $117.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758359?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758359?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10088876-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Watson Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4758359 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4758359 — net $255.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$162.50		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$10.00		Lock/key replacement
Funds received from tenants held in credit		$117.00	Funds received from tenants held in credit
Total award	$372.50	$117.00
Net award	$255.50
Bond	$4,950.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$255.50

Order

Madeleine Fejfar, Anastasia Falkov, Arianna Simoni, Dixie Rose, Grace Gilinsky and Erika Shiraiwa to pay Avery Rental Maintenance Limited As Agent For Shi Bruce Trust $255.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,950.00 (3469599-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Avery Rental Maintenance Limited As Agent For Shi Bruce Trust: $255.50 Madeleine Fejfar, Anastasia Falkov, Arianna Simoni, Dixie Rose, Grace Gilinsky Erika Shiraiwa: $4,694.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Deacon representing the landlord and Ms Fejfar and Ms Gilinsky appearing for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of part of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have filed a cross application for refund of the bond and compensation from the landlord for withholding the bond money not in dispute and poor communication over end of tenancy issues.
As explained at the hearing there is no basis on which the Tribunal can award the tenants compensation where bond money is withheld pending determination of a dispute nor, for poor communication by a party at the end of the tenancy. The tenants’ remedy is to file an application with the Tribunal to determine any dispute regarding refund of the bond. Notably the landlord filed an application to have the dispute determined on 6 December 2023, shortly after the tenancy ended. The tenants filed their cross application on 4 January 2024. While the landlord could have refunded the undisputed portion of the bond, there is no basis under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) for awarding compensation or any other penalty against the landlord in those circumstances. Therefore, the tenants’ cross application for compensation must be dismissed.

Did the tenants 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) RTA.
The tenants’ obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not generally be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
This was a fixed term tenancy to run until 14 January 2024. However, the parties agreed to end the tenancy early. The tenants paid a break fee to the landlord to cover the landlord’s costs of finding new tenants. This tenancy then ended on 28 November 2023 and a new tenancy started on 29 November, with the new tenants moving into the premises that day.
The tenants vacated the premises on 27 November after which the landlord completed an end of tenancy inspection that afternoon. Ms Deacon took photos of the premises which she produced in evidence along with her exit inspection report. An entry inspection report with photos taken before the tenancy began was also produced in evidence. General cleaning
Ms Deacon was not satisfied that the premises had been left reasonably clean and tidy advised the tenants of further cleaning work required. She said that the tenants could either come back to finish the cleaning, otherwise she had a cleaner who would carry out the work the next day at a cost of $162.50. There were some further communications between the parties, but no agreement reached about the matter. The tenants did not return to clean, and Ms Deacon arranged for a cleaner to do the work. I find that she was under some pressure to complete the cleaning quickly because of the new tenancy starting on 29 November.
Ms Deacon has submitted a cleaning invoice for $207. She says that because the tenants did not respond quickly enough and advise her what they wanted to do about the cleaning, she had to find another cleaner at a higher price. The tenants believe that they agreed to a cleaning cost of $162.50 and note that they paid a sum of $617 to the landlord to cover the break fee and cleaning.
I am satisfied after reviewing the photo evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish, so that some extra cleaning was required. The landlord claims the full cleaning costs incurred of $207. The cleaning invoice notes that the cleaning instruction was to “Prepare the house for new tenants.” It also records work done that was not identified as an issue in Ms Deacon’s email to the tenants on 27 November. For example, the invoice covers refitting an oven seal, sweeping out the garage and tidying the clothesline which Ms Deacon did not mention.
As noted above, the tenants are only required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy which does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. On balance after considering all the available evidence, I find that the cleaning fee should be reduced to $162.50 which was the costs indication to the tenants to cover the work highlighted as outstanding. Carpet cleaning
The landlord acknowledges that there were pre-existing stains on the carpet before the tenancy started, but says there were also new stains for which she is claiming the costs of carpet cleaning in bedrooms 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 only. I have carefully reviewed and compared the entry and exit inspection reports and photos produced in evidence. I am satisfied that there are new stains in bedrooms 1, 3, and 6. In relation to bedrooms 4 and 5 it is difficult to distinguish pre-existing stains from the stains shown in the exit photos. In relation to bedroom 7, the landlord claims that there are three new stains including some red dots. However, the red dots were recorded on the entry inspection, which Ms Gilinsky pointed out in the hearing. So, they are not new stains.
Even accepting that there were some stains at the end of the tenancy in 5 or 6 bedrooms, the cleaning invoice covers the entire house of 7 bedrooms plus the lounge, hallway and stairs, for which Ms Deacon confirmed she is not claiming carpet cleaning costs. Therefore, the claim must be reduced. After careful consideration, I allow $200 for carpet cleaning which I consider reasonable based on the photo evidence.
The tenants accept that they did not return one of the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As both parties have succeeded to some extent, I am not awarding reimbursement of the filing fee to either party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4758359 — net $255.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$162.50		Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$10.00		Lock/key replacement
Funds received from tenants held in credit		$117.00	Funds received from tenants held in credit
Total award	$372.50	$117.00
Net award	$255.50
Bond	$4,950.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$255.50

Order

Madeleine Fejfar, Anastasia Falkov, Arianna Simoni, Dixie Rose, Grace Gilinsky and Erika Shiraiwa to pay Avery Rental Maintenance Limited As Agent For Shi Bruce Trust $255.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,950.00 (3469599-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Avery Rental Maintenance Limited As Agent For Shi Bruce Trust: $255.50 Madeleine Fejfar, Anastasia Falkov, Arianna Simoni, Dixie Rose, Grace Gilinsky Erika Shiraiwa: $4,694.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Deacon representing the landlord and Ms Fejfar and Ms Gilinsky appearing for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of part of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have filed a cross application for refund of the bond and compensation from the landlord for withholding the bond money not in dispute and poor communication over end of tenancy issues.
As explained at the hearing there is no basis on which the Tribunal can award the tenants compensation where bond money is withheld pending determination of a dispute nor, for poor communication by a party at the end of the tenancy. The tenants’ remedy is to file an application with the Tribunal to determine any dispute regarding refund of the bond. Notably the landlord filed an application to have the dispute determined on 6 December 2023, shortly after the tenancy ended. The tenants filed their cross application on 4 January 2024. While the landlord could have refunded the undisputed portion of the bond, there is no basis under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) for awarding compensation or any other penalty against the landlord in those circumstances. Therefore, the tenants’ cross application for compensation must be dismissed.

Did the tenants 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) RTA.
The tenants’ obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not generally be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
This was a fixed term tenancy to run until 14 January 2024. However, the parties agreed to end the tenancy early. The tenants paid a break fee to the landlord to cover the landlord’s costs of finding new tenants. This tenancy then ended on 28 November 2023 and a new tenancy started on 29 November, with the new tenants moving into the premises that day.
The tenants vacated the premises on 27 November after which the landlord completed an end of tenancy inspection that afternoon. Ms Deacon took photos of the premises which she produced in evidence along with her exit inspection report. An entry inspection report with photos taken before the tenancy began was also produced in evidence. General cleaning
Ms Deacon was not satisfied that the premises had been left reasonably clean and tidy advised the tenants of further cleaning work required. She said that the tenants could either come back to finish the cleaning, otherwise she had a cleaner who would carry out the work the next day at a cost of $162.50. There were some further communications between the parties, but no agreement reached about the matter. The tenants did not return to clean, and Ms Deacon arranged for a cleaner to do the work. I find that she was under some pressure to complete the cleaning quickly because of the new tenancy starting on 29 November.
Ms Deacon has submitted a cleaning invoice for $207. She says that because the tenants did not respond quickly enough and advise her what they wanted to do about the cleaning, she had to find another cleaner at a higher price. The tenants believe that they agreed to a cleaning cost of $162.50 and note that they paid a sum of $617 to the landlord to cover the break fee and cleaning.
I am satisfied after reviewing the photo evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish, so that some extra cleaning was required. The landlord claims the full cleaning costs incurred of $207. The cleaning invoice notes that the cleaning instruction was to “Prepare the house for new tenants.” It also records work done that was not identified as an issue in Ms Deacon’s email to the tenants on 27 November. For example, the invoice covers refitting an oven seal, sweeping out the garage and tidying the clothesline which Ms Deacon did not mention.
As noted above, the tenants are only required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy which does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. On balance after considering all the available evidence, I find that the cleaning fee should be reduced to $162.50 which was the costs indication to the tenants to cover the work highlighted as outstanding. Carpet cleaning
The landlord acknowledges that there were pre-existing stains on the carpet before the tenancy started, but says there were also new stains for which she is claiming the costs of carpet cleaning in bedrooms 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 only. I have carefully reviewed and compared the entry and exit inspection reports and photos produced in evidence. I am satisfied that there are new stains in bedrooms 1, 3, and 6. In relation to bedrooms 4 and 5 it is difficult to distinguish pre-existing stains from the stains shown in the exit photos. In relation to bedroom 7, the landlord claims that there are three new stains including some red dots. However, the red dots were recorded on the entry inspection, which Ms Gilinsky pointed out in the hearing. So, they are not new stains.
Even accepting that there were some stains at the end of the tenancy in 5 or 6 bedrooms, the cleaning invoice covers the entire house of 7 bedrooms plus the lounge, hallway and stairs, for which Ms Deacon confirmed she is not claiming carpet cleaning costs. Therefore, the claim must be reduced. After careful consideration, I allow $200 for carpet cleaning which I consider reasonable based on the photo evidence.
The tenants accept that they did not return one of the keys.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As both parties have succeeded to some extent, I am not awarding reimbursement of the filing fee to either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758359 — Cleanliness at 5 Watson Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758359 — Cleanliness at 5 Watson Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions