What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4809817 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Judith Casbolt $120.00 from the bond being stain

How much money was awarded in case 4809817?

The reconciled net award was $120.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809817?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809817?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10477326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4809817 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Judith Casbolt $120.00 from the bond being stain

How much money was awarded in case 4809817?

The reconciled net award was $120.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809817?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809817?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10477326-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4809817 — Cleanliness

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Judith Casbolt $120.00 from the bond being stain treatment for the carpet.
The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Judith Casbolt: $120.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,960.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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).
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. She says that there was a smell in furnishings, carpet had to be cleaned and exterior surfaces needed to be washed down. The landlord claimed a total of $694.75.
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. The landlord has the onus of proving its claims, on the balance of probabilities.
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.
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 only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably clean condition.
The landlord claimed the cost of cleaning a mattress and couch ($150.00). The tenant disputed the claims. He said that the couch was in an open area by the kitchen and any smell could have been caused by cooking. He noted that the landlord replaced extractor filters during the tenancy to try to reduce smells. If there was a residual smell in the couch at the end of the tenancy, I am not persuaded that it was caused by any breach of the tenant’s obligations.
An email from the cleaner (employed by the landlord) records that the King Bed was “relatively OK” but needed a clean. No photos were provided. The tenant said they used a mattress protector, the landlord also referred to the mattress protector. The tenant provided a text message from the cleaner he engaged, which recorded that they did not notice any smell in the premises.
The landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that the mattress had to be cleaned because of any breach of the tenant’s obligations. These claims are dismissed.
The landlord also claimed $194.00 for carpet cleaning. The landlord provided photographs and a receipt. The evidence established that some stain treatment was required, particularly where it appeared there had been spills under a couch and a bookcase. Having regard to similar claims and awards, I order the tenant to pay $120.00 for stain removal.
The landlord claimed $350.75 for cleaning of an exterior deck and car park area. The landlord provided photographs and claimed that the tenant did not leave those areas reasonable clean and tidy. The deck area may have benefitted from some extra cleaning but it was not in an unreasonable condition for an exterior surface. I also note that the invoice provided by the landlord refers to “light” cleaning being required. The carpark area was consistent with a reasonably tidy exterior sealed surface. To the extent that an asphalt treatment was applied (as set out the invoice), this is a landlord maintenance item; it is not a cost that a tenant would reasonably be expected to incur. These claims are dismissed.
As the tenant was substantially successful, I have granted its request for suppression of its details. I have not awarded reimbursement of either filing fee as both parties were partially successful.

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Judith Casbolt $120.00 from the bond being stain treatment for the carpet.
The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Judith Casbolt: $120.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,960.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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).
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. She says that there was a smell in furnishings, carpet had to be cleaned and exterior surfaces needed to be washed down. The landlord claimed a total of $694.75.
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. The landlord has the onus of proving its claims, on the balance of probabilities.
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.
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 only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably clean condition.
The landlord claimed the cost of cleaning a mattress and couch ($150.00). The tenant disputed the claims. He said that the couch was in an open area by the kitchen and any smell could have been caused by cooking. He noted that the landlord replaced extractor filters during the tenancy to try to reduce smells. If there was a residual smell in the couch at the end of the tenancy, I am not persuaded that it was caused by any breach of the tenant’s obligations.
An email from the cleaner (employed by the landlord) records that the King Bed was “relatively OK” but needed a clean. No photos were provided. The tenant said they used a mattress protector, the landlord also referred to the mattress protector. The tenant provided a text message from the cleaner he engaged, which recorded that they did not notice any smell in the premises.
The landlord has not established that it is more likely than not that the mattress had to be cleaned because of any breach of the tenant’s obligations. These claims are dismissed.
The landlord also claimed $194.00 for carpet cleaning. The landlord provided photographs and a receipt. The evidence established that some stain treatment was required, particularly where it appeared there had been spills under a couch and a bookcase. Having regard to similar claims and awards, I order the tenant to pay $120.00 for stain removal.
The landlord claimed $350.75 for cleaning of an exterior deck and car park area. The landlord provided photographs and claimed that the tenant did not leave those areas reasonable clean and tidy. The deck area may have benefitted from some extra cleaning but it was not in an unreasonable condition for an exterior surface. I also note that the invoice provided by the landlord refers to “light” cleaning being required. The carpark area was consistent with a reasonably tidy exterior sealed surface. To the extent that an asphalt treatment was applied (as set out the invoice), this is a landlord maintenance item; it is not a cost that a tenant would reasonably be expected to incur. These claims are dismissed.
As the tenant was substantially successful, I have granted its request for suppression of its details. I have not awarded reimbursement of either filing fee as both parties were partially successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4809817 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4809817 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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