What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4835086?

The tribunal order states: Benjamin William Cooper, Teone Jacob-Bradley and Jezza Vivian to pay

How much money was awarded in case 4835086?

Cleaning: $305.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4835086?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4835086?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10717859-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4835086?

The tribunal order states: Benjamin William Cooper, Teone Jacob-Bradley and Jezza Vivian to pay

How much money was awarded in case 4835086?

Cleaning: $305.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4835086?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4835086?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10717859-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

86A Thurleigh Grove, Karori, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4835086 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4835086 — net $326.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$305.80	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$326.24
Bond	$632.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$326.24

Order

Benjamin William Cooper, Teone Jacob-Bradley and Jezza Vivian to pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Victoria Cameron $326.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $632.24 (6083341-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Victoria Cameron: $326.34 Benjamin William Cooper, Teone Jacob- Bradley and Jezza Vivian: $305.90

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for cleaning costs and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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.
The tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. 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 based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided extensive photos of the condition of the premises after the tenants had vacated the premises (the exit photos). The landlord claims that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, noting many areas of dusty skirtings, power points and switches; marks on walls; spots of mould on windows and sills; dirty oven, rangehood and dishwasher filter; areas of dirt missed around toilets, basins, and taps; dirty extractor fans areas and cat hair in the master bedroom. Many of the photos were taken close-up so that, for example, dust could be seen more clearly.
The landlord also provided a copy of the photos taken before the tenancy started (the entry photos) to show the level of cleanliness at that point and they noted that everything was clean. Both sets of photos were provided as digital files so that you could zoom in on the photos.
The landlord provided a copy of the work order sent to their cleaner. Apart from the fronts of the kitchen cupboards, all cleaning work was to be invoiced to the tenants. The work order also recorded “Please attend before Friday as being staged for going on the market with ...Lowe & Co”. The cleaning invoice totals $611.80 and includes shampooing the carpet in the master bedroom to remove cat hair.
The tenants had an opportunity to comment on the exit and entry photos. They contend that they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They also provided extensive commentary on the entry photos noting that some dust, marks, and dirt were present at the start of the tenancy when you zoomed in on the photos. They also noted that in some areas, there were no photos taken of corresponding areas in the exit report or photos were taken at a distance so that you could not see the condition close up. For example, the entry photos clearly show that the extractor fans in the kitchen, and ensuite are dirty and dusty. The photo of the fan in the main bathroom is taken at a distance and therefore it cannot be compared with the exit photo. I find that the tenants made reasonable comments concerning the entry photos and were able to demonstrate that several areas were not clean and looked similar to the exit photos.
The tenants conceded that they should have cleaned the oven and produced estimates they obtained from other cleaning companies with the average cleaning cost being $142.25.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I find that some areas of the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy so that the tenants are responsible for some cleaning, but not to the full extent claimed. I accept that there was some dust and dirt in the entry photos and the tenants are not required to leave those areas in any better condition than they found them. I also do not accept that the tenants were required to leave every other surface (e.g.skirtings) spotless. However, I accept that oven cleaning was required and there appeared many areas around windows and frames that were covered in dirt/mould spots that needed to be wiped down. On balance, I find that the tenants are responsible for one half the cleaning costs which I consider is justified in respect of the areas not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4835086 — net $326.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$305.80	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$326.24
Bond	$632.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$326.24

Order

Benjamin William Cooper, Teone Jacob-Bradley and Jezza Vivian to pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Victoria Cameron $326.34 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $632.24 (6083341-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Victoria Cameron: $326.34 Benjamin William Cooper, Teone Jacob- Bradley and Jezza Vivian: $305.90

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for cleaning costs and reimbursement of the filing fee following 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.
The tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. 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 based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided extensive photos of the condition of the premises after the tenants had vacated the premises (the exit photos). The landlord claims that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, noting many areas of dusty skirtings, power points and switches; marks on walls; spots of mould on windows and sills; dirty oven, rangehood and dishwasher filter; areas of dirt missed around toilets, basins, and taps; dirty extractor fans areas and cat hair in the master bedroom. Many of the photos were taken close-up so that, for example, dust could be seen more clearly.
The landlord also provided a copy of the photos taken before the tenancy started (the entry photos) to show the level of cleanliness at that point and they noted that everything was clean. Both sets of photos were provided as digital files so that you could zoom in on the photos.
The landlord provided a copy of the work order sent to their cleaner. Apart from the fronts of the kitchen cupboards, all cleaning work was to be invoiced to the tenants. The work order also recorded “Please attend before Friday as being staged for going on the market with ...Lowe & Co”. The cleaning invoice totals $611.80 and includes shampooing the carpet in the master bedroom to remove cat hair.
The tenants had an opportunity to comment on the exit and entry photos. They contend that they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They also provided extensive commentary on the entry photos noting that some dust, marks, and dirt were present at the start of the tenancy when you zoomed in on the photos. They also noted that in some areas, there were no photos taken of corresponding areas in the exit report or photos were taken at a distance so that you could not see the condition close up. For example, the entry photos clearly show that the extractor fans in the kitchen, and ensuite are dirty and dusty. The photo of the fan in the main bathroom is taken at a distance and therefore it cannot be compared with the exit photo. I find that the tenants made reasonable comments concerning the entry photos and were able to demonstrate that several areas were not clean and looked similar to the exit photos.
The tenants conceded that they should have cleaned the oven and produced estimates they obtained from other cleaning companies with the average cleaning cost being $142.25.
After carefully considering all the available evidence, I find that some areas of the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy so that the tenants are responsible for some cleaning, but not to the full extent claimed. I accept that there was some dust and dirt in the entry photos and the tenants are not required to leave those areas in any better condition than they found them. I also do not accept that the tenants were required to leave every other surface (e.g.skirtings) spotless. However, I accept that oven cleaning was required and there appeared many areas around windows and frames that were covered in dirt/mould spots that needed to be wiped down. On balance, I find that the tenants are responsible for one half the cleaning costs which I consider is justified in respect of the areas not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4835086 — Cleanliness at 86A Thurleigh Grove, Karori, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4835086 — Cleanliness at 86A Thurleigh Grove, Karori, Wellington 6012

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions