What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774877 about?

The tribunal order states: Gaylene Maryanne Taylor to pay At Home Realty Pty Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4774877?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bins: $160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774877?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11064390-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774877 about?

The tribunal order states: Gaylene Maryanne Taylor to pay At Home Realty Pty Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4774877?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bins: $160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774877?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11064390-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774877 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774877 — net $632.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Replace bins	$160.00	Replace bins
Oven/stove cleaning	$172.50	Oven/stove cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$80.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$632.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$632.94

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774877 — net $632.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Replace bins	$160.00	Replace bins
Oven/stove cleaning	$172.50	Oven/stove cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$80.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$632.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$632.94

Order

Gaylene Maryanne Taylor to pay At Home Realty Pty Limited As Agent For Mike Steadman $632.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $472.94 632.94 from the ([Bond number suppressed]) to At Home Realty Pty Limited As Agent For Mike Steadman immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of $847.06 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 09 September 2019. The tenant gave notice and the tenancy ended on 03 December 2023. On 02 January 2024, the landlord filed a claim. On 05 November 2024, the tenant filed a counterclaim.
On 05 November 2024, the tenant made a request to appear by telephone. The matters are not suitable for a telephone or video hearing and the request was declined. I note there have been several adjournments granted to both parties.
[ redacted] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord’s claims are that (in brackets are details of the compensation sought) : i. The tenant failed to account for chattels provided with the tenancy namely the council rubbish and recycling bins ($177.00), ii. Caused damage to the ceiling ($1,955.00), iii. Caused damage to the carpet ($759.00), iv. Failed to leave the interior of the property reasonably clean ($1,552.50), v. Failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy ($160.00).
The tenant disputes the landlord’s claims, and further claims that the landlord has harassed them about cleaning, the bond, and the presence of a cat.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making it. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case both 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”).
There has been no appearance by the tenant and no request has been made for an adjournment. The tenant’s claims are dismissed. The landlords claim.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. This includes the interior of the property and, unless otherwise agreed, the lawns and gardens. The tenant must remove all rubbish. The tenant must also account for all chattels provided with the tenancy.
The Act does not require the premises be returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy will involve an objective assessment. 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 landlord is claiming $177.00 for the missing council waste and recycling bins (including the food scraps bin), $1,552.50 for cleaning the interior of the property, which includes the oven, and sanding and varnishing a wooden bench top in the kitchen the landlord claims was stained and could not be cleaned, and $160.00 for lawn maintenance.
There is no pre tenancy checklist. The pre tenancy inspection report produced states the inspection was completed on 27 September 2018. This is a year before the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs contained in the report are electronically date stamped with “27 Sep 2018” and show the property empty. The lawn is patchy and in poor condition.
The landlord states that there was a change of landlord on 05 August 2022 and that the previous management company had provided the report. The landlord speculates that either the electronic date stamps are wrong, or that there was a previous tenancy agreement with the same parties. There is no evidence from the previous landlord concerning either.
The landlord has also produced photographs taken at inspections on 12 September 2022, 05 October 2022, 26 October 2022, 09 March 2023, 26 April 2023, 01 June 2023, 24 August 2023, and 09 November 2023. The photographs show the property cluttered and not maintained in a reasonably clean condition.
The landlord had the oven professionally cleaned on 13 October 2023. The landlord has produced an invoice along with the photographs of the oven prior to cleaning.
The landlord has produced photographs of the interior and exterior of the property which they state were taken within five days after the end of the tenancy. There are photographs of the lawn , the carpet in the dining / lounge and two bedrooms , the wooden bench top , the backs of the curtains in the lounge and bedrooms , three of the inside of the oven , a close up of the plug hole in the bathroom sink , the rangehood in the kitchen, a part of the metal kitchen bench , a section of wall above the heat pump in the lounge / dining room , a bedroom wall , the tap over the sink in the bathroom , a section of wall in the lounge , eight of the vinyl flooring the kitchen , and one partly showing the vinyl flooring into the bathroom. The photographs of the vinyl flooring in the kitchen also show the outside of parts of the kitchen cabinetry.
It remains unclear whether the report and photographs relied on to establish the state of cleanliness of the property at the commencement of the tenancy are in fact for this tenancy.
The photographs show that the property was likely built in the early 1980’s. The landlord states that the owner has advised that they renovated the property shortly before the tenancy commenced. However, there is no evidence to corroborate this fact.
The property has a kitchen, dining / lounge area, bathroom / laundry / toilet, and two bedrooms. The invoice produced covers cleaning of each of these areas.
There are no end of tenancy photographs showing the toilet or shower.
Apart from the photographs mentioned above there are no others produced. There is insufficient evidence to award the total amount claimed.
On the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the kitchen floor and skirting boards, the rangehood, some sections of wall in the lounge and bedroom, and the oven reasonably clean.
I award the landlord $172.50 to clean the oven, and $200.00 for general cleaning.
The council bins are not recorded as chattels in the tenancy agreement. However, the waste, recycling, and food scraps bins are shown in several of the property inspection photographs. I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to account for these bins. There is no evidence concerning the glass recycling bin. I remove that bin from the claim.
The photographs of the lawn at the end of the tenancy appear to show that it has been recently mown, however, the edges do not appear to have been trimmed. The invoice covers mowing, trimming the edges, and removal of pots. Unable to determine the condition of the lawn at the commencement of the tenancy I decline to award lawn mowing costs. However, I accept the part of the claim for edge trimming and removal of the pots. I award the landlord $80.00 for ground maintenance.
Regarding the wooden bench top. The tenant has submitted photographs they purport to have been taken showing the interior of the property at the end of the tenancy. They are blurry and of limited evidential value. One of the photographs shows the wooden bench top. The area of staining is obscured by a cardboard box. The landlord states that the bench top likely had a protective lacquer or varnish coat, which may have worn off. I am unable to be satisfied as the condition of the bench top at the commencement of the tenancy, and this part of the claim is declined.
The total amount awarded for cleaning and replacing the missing bins is $612.50. Damage
The landlord claims that the ceiling throughout the property was soiled by fly dirt to the extent that it was unable to be cleaned and needed repainting, and that the carpet and vinyl flooring was stained and marked to the extent that they could not be cleaned and also required replacing. The landlord is claiming $1,955.00 to repaint the ceilings, and $1,514.56 to replace the vinyl flooring in the kitchen and bathroom. An insurance claim was made for the carpet and the landlord is claiming three excesses of $250.00 per room ($750.00).
The landlord has produced photographs showing what they claim are numerous flies on the ceiling and walls in the lounge, and a section of wall beneath a window in one of the bedrooms. The photographs also show staining to the carpet in each room. The landlord states the photographs produced of the vinyl flooring in the kitchen show marks that could not be removed. There is no evidence as to the condition of the vinyl flooring in the bathroom.
While the evidence as to the condition of a property at the commencement of a tenancy is one of the factors to be taken into account in assessing whether a tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, it has a greater significance when determining claims for damage.
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. This requires a before and after comparison. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
As stated, it is unclear whether the report and photographs relied on by the landlord to show the property’s condition at the commencement of the tenancy are in fact from the beginning of this tenancy. The Tribunal is unable to make an accurate before and after comparison. As a result, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied to the required standard that any of the damage claimed occurred during the tenancy. Therefore, the claims for damage are dismissed. Costs
The landlord has been partly successful with their claim, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord seeks 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.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In this case I do not consider the landlord to have been wholly or substantially successful. Although the tenant’s claims have been dismissed, they were primarily a defence against the landlord’s claims. The tenant, however, has been substantially successful in the claims made against them. I therefore consider there are sufficient grounds on which to exercise the discretion allowed under section 95A(4) and order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774877 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774877 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions