What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4857922?

The tribunal order states: James Jacobus Brand to pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Ltd as agent for Gwyn

How much money was awarded in case 4857922?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $282.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $169.05 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $32.64 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4857922?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4857922?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10455451-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4857922?

The tribunal order states: James Jacobus Brand to pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Ltd as agent for Gwyn

How much money was awarded in case 4857922?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $282.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $169.05 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $32.64 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4857922?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4857922?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10455451-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 1, 61 Stanley Point Road, Stanley Point, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4857922 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4857922 — net $684.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 March 2024	$282.86	Rent arrears to 31 March 2024
Water rates	$32.64	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$169.05	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$200.00	14. The landlord paid professional cleaners $547.00 to clean the premises.
Net award	$684.55
Bond	$2,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$684.55

James Jacobus Brand to pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Ltd as agent for Gwyn & Sue Rees $684.55 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (3050823-018) immediately apportioned as follows: Cooper & Co Real Estate Ltd as agent for Gwyn & Sue Rees: $684.55 James Jacobus Brand: $1,875.45

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

James Brand, the tenant, attended the hearing by telephone.

Hannah Tillman attended the hearing in person for the landlord.

The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation for the cost of rubbish removal and cleaning, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment from the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant agrees with the landlord’s claims for rent and water and rubbish removal but disputes the claim for the cost of cleaning.

Should the tenant be ordered to pay the landlord for the cost of cleaning?

Legal principles

The landlord must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 1

Similarly, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 2

“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an average bystander. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.

A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 3

The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 45(1)(a). 2 RTA, s 40(1)(e)(iii). 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at

12. The evidence

Ms Tillman produced the entry inspection photographs and notes prepared by the property manager on 5 June 2022, five days before the tenancy began, the exit inspection photographs and notes prepared on 2 April 2024, two days after the tenancy ended, and close up images of particular parts of the premises that the landlord considered were not adequately clean.

Mr Brand said that the entry photographs are misleading because contractors did work at the premises and created a lot of mess after the entry inspection photographs were taken but before the tenancy began. Consequently, he was left to clean up their rubbish and mess. He says he filled out the entry inspection report confirming the premises lack of cleanliness and returned it to the then property manager. However, he does not have a copy of his completed report and nor does Ms Tillman.

Ms Tillman says she has found no notes or communications on the file to support Mr Brand’s submission. Discussion

The tenant has not proven that the landlord failed to provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant had no supporting evidence to demonstrate the alleged uncleanliness. If the landlord had no photographs or documents proving the premises was not left clean, the Tribunal would have dismissed the landlord’s claim. The tenant should be held to the same standard.

The landlord paid professional cleaners $547.00 to clean the premises. The amount spent on cleaning is proven.

Having carefully reviewed the photographs, I am satisfied that some of the window and sliding door sills and parts of the bathrooms were not left reasonably clean.

I consider that the that the cost of cleaning these areas so as to bring the premises up to a reasonable standard of cleanliness overall would have been in the order of $200.00. The remaining cost brought the premises up to a cleaner standard than required of a tenant on vacating the premises. It is natural that the landlord will want to present the premises in a better that just reasonably clean state to the next tenant. Conclusion

The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord $200.00 for the cost of cleaning Filing fee and bond

The Tribunal makes no order for the filing fee because both parties have substantially succeeded in their claims.

The Bond Centre is to be distribute the bond in accordance with this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4857922 — net $684.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 March 2024	$282.86	Rent arrears to 31 March 2024
Water rates	$32.64	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$169.05	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$200.00	14. The landlord paid professional cleaners $547.00 to clean the premises.
Net award	$684.55
Bond	$2,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$684.55

Order

James Jacobus Brand to pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Ltd as agent for Gwyn & Sue Rees $684.55 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (3050823-018) immediately apportioned as follows: Cooper & Co Real Estate Ltd as agent for Gwyn & Sue Rees: $684.55 James Jacobus Brand: $1,875.45
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

James Brand, the tenant, attended the hearing by telephone.
Hannah Tillman attended the hearing in person for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation for the cost of rubbish removal and cleaning, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment from the bond, following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant agrees with the landlord’s claims for rent and water and rubbish removal but disputes the claim for the cost of cleaning.

Should the tenant be ordered to pay the landlord for the cost of cleaning?

Legal principles

The landlord must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 1
Similarly, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 2
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an average bystander. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 3
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 45(1)(a). 2 RTA, s 40(1)(e)(iii). 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. The evidence
Ms Tillman produced the entry inspection photographs and notes prepared by the property manager on 5 June 2022, five days before the tenancy began, the exit inspection photographs and notes prepared on 2 April 2024, two days after the tenancy ended, and close up images of particular parts of the premises that the landlord considered were not adequately clean.
Mr Brand said that the entry photographs are misleading because contractors did work at the premises and created a lot of mess after the entry inspection photographs were taken but before the tenancy began. Consequently, he was left to clean up their rubbish and mess. He says he filled out the entry inspection report confirming the premises lack of cleanliness and returned it to the then property manager. However, he does not have a copy of his completed report and nor does Ms Tillman.
Ms Tillman says she has found no notes or communications on the file to support Mr Brand’s submission. Discussion
The tenant has not proven that the landlord failed to provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant had no supporting evidence to demonstrate the alleged uncleanliness. If the landlord had no photographs or documents proving the premises was not left clean, the Tribunal would have dismissed the landlord’s claim. The tenant should be held to the same standard.
The landlord paid professional cleaners $547.00 to clean the premises. The amount spent on cleaning is proven.
Having carefully reviewed the photographs, I am satisfied that some of the window and sliding door sills and parts of the bathrooms were not left reasonably clean.
I consider that the that the cost of cleaning these areas so as to bring the premises up to a reasonable standard of cleanliness overall would have been in the order of $200.00. The remaining cost brought the premises up to a cleaner standard than required of a tenant on vacating the premises. It is natural that the landlord will want to present the premises in a better that just reasonably clean state to the next tenant. Conclusion
The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlord $200.00 for the cost of cleaning Filing fee and bond
The Tribunal makes no order for the filing fee because both parties have substantially succeeded in their claims.
The Bond Centre is to be distribute the bond in accordance with this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4857922 — Rent arrears at Flat 1, 61 Stanley Point Road, Stanley Point,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4857922 — Rent arrears at Flat 1, 61 Stanley Point Road, Stanley Point,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant be ordered to pay the landlord for the cost of cleaning?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant be ordered to pay the landlord for the cost of cleaning?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions