What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4866363 about?

This case concerned a cleanliness dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4866363?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Other: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,748.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4866363?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4866363?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10841372-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4866363 about?

This case concerned a cleanliness dispute.

How much money was awarded in case 4866363?

Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Other: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,748.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4866363?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4866363?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10841372-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4866363 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4866363. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$517.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,748.00	Rubbish removal
Other	$300.00	Other

Reasons

[The tenant/s] and the landlord attended the hearing. The other tenants made no appearances.
The tenancy in this case sits on a steep hillside backing onto bush. The tenancy began in February 2020. The original tenants have since moved on and the tenancy taken over by various assignments to the applicants including [The tenant/s]. [The tenant/s] says that the tenancy was affected by maintenance issues including; ivy growing through windows and weatherboards and damaging roofing, gutters being blocked and overflowing, and the overflows and lack of maintenance causing rotten unsafe decking. The tenancy was already existing when [The tenant/s] moved in in October 2022. He says that he attempted to organise property inspections with the property manager, and these were scheduled to occur on 23 June 2023, however they did not go ahead when arranged. [The tenant/s] says his emails relating to this were not answered.
The property manager explained that she had been forced to postpone the initial inspection due to other work pressures. She was then seriously injured with a broken neck and was off work for more than a month following the date when the inspection was to have occurred. She says that the ivy was an issue as the house backed onto native bush. The ivy encroached on the side of the house and had damaged paint and grew into the bathroom window. It had been cut back on 2022 and then a tradesman attended the property attended on 14 December 2023 and cut the ivy back again.
On or around 5 March 2024, a water leak occurred with water running onto the power board in the house. This was both a fire hazard and meant that the electricity to the house had to be disconnected, causing the property to become untenantable. The landlord issued a notice giving the tenants seven days to leave the property, this was later extended to 14 days.
[The tenant/s] says that the lack of maintenance caused the leak which affected the power. However, the landlord’s evidence was that the leak was in fact caused by the failure of dux quest piping. Dux quest was a plastic plumbing product used in the 1980s and early 1990s, which degrades with age and is prone to sudden and unexpected failure.
Following the termination notice, [The tenant/s] says that he and the tenants cleaned the property to a good standard. However, he says that there were significant quantities of furniture and other material which was left as it belonged to the previous tenants on the lease, as his flatmates did not have access to a motor vehicle, and due to the access issues caused by the site of the tenancy.
The landlord has provided photos, and the property manager gave evidence the photos show a very large amount of furniture left behind show amongst other things: a. a storage room full of rubbish including several full rubbish bags; b. the laundry full of bedding, and other personal items, and boxes of cleaning products; c. a pile of shoes behind the front door; d. rubbish bags in bedrooms; e. clothing and piles of boxes left in the hallways; f. storage cupboards full of bedding, electronic items, and kitchenware; g. wine boxes and other personal items left on the fire mantle; h. tables covered in bags full of unknown items; i. houseplants; j. cupboards left full of personal items; k. food left in kitchen cupboards and on bench areas; l. pizza boxes and other food items left lying around; m. toilets and bathrooms uncleaned; and personal items left on decks in and outside areas.
The photos of one-bedroom, which I understand to have been [The tenant/s], was clean with all personal items removed. However, another bedroom had so many personal items left that for all appearances it may as well have been still tenanted.
The property manager’s evidence was that there had been several ant infestations caused by the food left over which included cat food left out in one of the upstairs bedrooms. She said that apart from [The tenant/s] bedroom all the other bedrooms appeared to be still tenanted. I cannot accept [The tenant/s] evidence that his housemates had cleaned to a reasonable level.
The tenants claim that the failure to maintain lead to the leak which ended the tenancy, as a result [The tenant/s] seeks $850 in compensation.
The landlord claims that the tenants failed to leave the premises and a reasonably clean state, and therefore claims the cost to clean the premises and remove the items left, totalling $2565.50. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord acknowledges that the ivy was an issue, however, I do note that steps were taken to control the ivy in 2022 and again in December 2023. The evidence supplied shows that ivy did grow into the bathroom through a window stop however, this was not an issue that was being ignored or that affected the amenity of the bathroom.
The tenants claim that gutters became full of leaves from the native bush and overflowed onto decking leading to unsafe and rotten decking. However, [The tenant/s] could not identify any areas where the decking was unsafe on the photos provided. The evidence suggests that the landlord was aware of the issue with the guttering and did take steps to address it.
The claim of lack of maintenance is not made out.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Cleaning was necessary, as shown by the photos after re- entry.
My considerations here are affected by two issues; a. the fact that the premises required significant renovation to address the damage caused by the leaking ducts with pipes, therefore, the cleaning did not need to be to the same level required if the property is going to be re- tenanted; and b. the fact that the evidence appears to show that [The tenant/s] that his upmost to uphold his obligations, however, the other flatmates did not.
The majority of the landlord’s claim is for rubbish removal. The costs are high. However, the contractor retained to do this took for full trailer loads and two full van loads of goods to the tip. The cleaning was also significant and included $517.50 for a cleaner who carried out extensive cleaning, and the time of the property manager and another employee of the landlord to assist. I note that this was invoiced to the owner. The amounts are high but are in keeping with the photos provided. The property manager gave evidence that the cleaning mainly involve removing items cleaning up the ant’s nest. No vacuuming was done, as there was no electricity, but also because of the repair work.
[The tenant/s] argued that these items belong to previous tenants and therefore he and his other tenants should not be obliged to remove these items. However, [The tenant/s] and his flatmates took on the existing tenancy. As a result they were obliged to remove the items left behind, whether those items belong to them all the previous tenants. Moreover, while [The tenant/s] appears to have taken reasonable steps to fulfil his obligations, as a joint tenant he is jointly and severally liable for the actions of his flatmates.
The landlord’s costs are proven, and I award $2565.50. This leaves a remaining bond amount of $834.50. I direct that this will be paid in its entirety to [The tenant/s], as the property manager gave evidence that [The tenant/s] returned to carry out additional cleaning after he had moved out having taken his own possessions and cleaned his own room to a reasonable standard.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4866363. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$517.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$1,748.00	Rubbish removal
Other	$300.00	Other

Reasons

[The tenant/s] and the landlord attended the hearing. The other tenants made no appearances.
The tenancy in this case sits on a steep hillside backing onto bush. The tenancy began in February 2020. The original tenants have since moved on and the tenancy taken over by various assignments to the applicants including [The tenant/s]. [The tenant/s] says that the tenancy was affected by maintenance issues including; ivy growing through windows and weatherboards and damaging roofing, gutters being blocked and overflowing, and the overflows and lack of maintenance causing rotten unsafe decking. The tenancy was already existing when [The tenant/s] moved in in October 2022. He says that he attempted to organise property inspections with the property manager, and these were scheduled to occur on 23 June 2023, however they did not go ahead when arranged. [The tenant/s] says his emails relating to this were not answered.
The property manager explained that she had been forced to postpone the initial inspection due to other work pressures. She was then seriously injured with a broken neck and was off work for more than a month following the date when the inspection was to have occurred. She says that the ivy was an issue as the house backed onto native bush. The ivy encroached on the side of the house and had damaged paint and grew into the bathroom window. It had been cut back on 2022 and then a tradesman attended the property attended on 14 December 2023 and cut the ivy back again.
On or around 5 March 2024, a water leak occurred with water running onto the power board in the house. This was both a fire hazard and meant that the electricity to the house had to be disconnected, causing the property to become untenantable. The landlord issued a notice giving the tenants seven days to leave the property, this was later extended to 14 days.
[The tenant/s] says that the lack of maintenance caused the leak which affected the power. However, the landlord’s evidence was that the leak was in fact caused by the failure of dux quest piping. Dux quest was a plastic plumbing product used in the 1980s and early 1990s, which degrades with age and is prone to sudden and unexpected failure.
Following the termination notice, [The tenant/s] says that he and the tenants cleaned the property to a good standard. However, he says that there were significant quantities of furniture and other material which was left as it belonged to the previous tenants on the lease, as his flatmates did not have access to a motor vehicle, and due to the access issues caused by the site of the tenancy.
The landlord has provided photos, and the property manager gave evidence the photos show a very large amount of furniture left behind show amongst other things: a. a storage room full of rubbish including several full rubbish bags; b. the laundry full of bedding, and other personal items, and boxes of cleaning products; c. a pile of shoes behind the front door; d. rubbish bags in bedrooms; e. clothing and piles of boxes left in the hallways; f. storage cupboards full of bedding, electronic items, and kitchenware; g. wine boxes and other personal items left on the fire mantle; h. tables covered in bags full of unknown items; i. houseplants; j. cupboards left full of personal items; k. food left in kitchen cupboards and on bench areas; l. pizza boxes and other food items left lying around; m. toilets and bathrooms uncleaned; and personal items left on decks in and outside areas.
The photos of one-bedroom, which I understand to have been [The tenant/s], was clean with all personal items removed. However, another bedroom had so many personal items left that for all appearances it may as well have been still tenanted.
The property manager’s evidence was that there had been several ant infestations caused by the food left over which included cat food left out in one of the upstairs bedrooms. She said that apart from [The tenant/s] bedroom all the other bedrooms appeared to be still tenanted. I cannot accept [The tenant/s] evidence that his housemates had cleaned to a reasonable level.
The tenants claim that the failure to maintain lead to the leak which ended the tenancy, as a result [The tenant/s] seeks $850 in compensation.
The landlord claims that the tenants failed to leave the premises and a reasonably clean state, and therefore claims the cost to clean the premises and remove the items left, totalling $2565.50. Failure to maintain
[The tenant/s] claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord acknowledges that the ivy was an issue, however, I do note that steps were taken to control the ivy in 2022 and again in December 2023. The evidence supplied shows that ivy did grow into the bathroom through a window stop however, this was not an issue that was being ignored or that affected the amenity of the bathroom.
The tenants claim that gutters became full of leaves from the native bush and overflowed onto decking leading to unsafe and rotten decking. However, [The tenant/s] could not identify any areas where the decking was unsafe on the photos provided. The evidence suggests that the landlord was aware of the issue with the guttering and did take steps to address it.
The claim of lack of maintenance is not made out.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Cleaning was necessary, as shown by the photos after re- entry.
My considerations here are affected by two issues; a. the fact that the premises required significant renovation to address the damage caused by the leaking ducts with pipes, therefore, the cleaning did not need to be to the same level required if the property is going to be re- tenanted; and b. the fact that the evidence appears to show that [The tenant/s] that his upmost to uphold his obligations, however, the other flatmates did not.
The majority of the landlord’s claim is for rubbish removal. The costs are high. However, the contractor retained to do this took for full trailer loads and two full van loads of goods to the tip. The cleaning was also significant and included $517.50 for a cleaner who carried out extensive cleaning, and the time of the property manager and another employee of the landlord to assist. I note that this was invoiced to the owner. The amounts are high but are in keeping with the photos provided. The property manager gave evidence that the cleaning mainly involve removing items cleaning up the ant’s nest. No vacuuming was done, as there was no electricity, but also because of the repair work.
[The tenant/s] argued that these items belong to previous tenants and therefore he and his other tenants should not be obliged to remove these items. However, [The tenant/s] and his flatmates took on the existing tenancy. As a result they were obliged to remove the items left behind, whether those items belong to them all the previous tenants. Moreover, while [The tenant/s] appears to have taken reasonable steps to fulfil his obligations, as a joint tenant he is jointly and severally liable for the actions of his flatmates.
The landlord’s costs are proven, and I award $2565.50. This leaves a remaining bond amount of $834.50. I direct that this will be paid in its entirety to [The tenant/s], as the property manager gave evidence that [The tenant/s] returned to carry out additional cleaning after he had moved out having taken his own possessions and cleaned his own room to a reasonable standard.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4866363 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4866363 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

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

Claims & awards

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