What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4870941 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4870941?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Bathroom heat l…: $55.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4870941?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4870941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10744341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4870941 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4870941?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Bathroom heat l…: $55.27 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4870941?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4870941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10744341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

19 Perla Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4870941 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4870941 — net $633.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$138.00	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$75.00	Pest control
Replace furnishings: Bathroom heat lights	$55.27	Replace furnishings: Bathroom heat lights
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$633.71
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$633.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Garry Solis, John El Pia, Rochel Lachica and Zaldy Trajano to pay [The landlord/s] $633.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $633.71 Garry Solis, John El Pia, Rochel Lachica and Zaldy Trajano: $2,166.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Depaoli is the representative of the tenants who were all employed by the same company. Ms Depaoli has been appointed by the tenants as their representative in this hearing and I have accepted that she has authority to represent them and that it is appropriate for her to do so.
As Ms Depaoli is a representative of the tenants but not a tenant (party to the tenancy agreement) herself then she is not liable for any of the amounts awarded against the tenant.
[Redacted] was the tenant but he was removed from the tenancy by agreement to vary the tenancy agreement and he is therefore not liable for any of the claimed amounts.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, heat lamps not working in a bathroom, stain removal in bedroom 2 carpet and pest control, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepts the landlord’s claims for the heat pumps ($55.27) and the landlord’s claim for stain removal of the carpet in bedroom 2 ($120.00 plus GST).

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The onus to establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The landlord and the tenants have provided photographs and videos taken on the 2 April after the tenancy ended. Whilst those photographs show that some cleaning has been done by the tenants, there are areas of the property that require further cleaning to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This includes the oven, and drawers, cupboards and benchtop in the bathroom and kitchen, some walls had marks on them, and windowsills and windows needed cleaning.
The amount awarded by the Tribunal is only that necessary to pay for the cleaning to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The Tribunal deals with these claims daily, and I consider the amount claimed by the landlord for the cleaning to be excessive for the work required to bring the property up to a reasonable standard. The landlord’s claim amounts to 14 hours @$50 per hour (2 people at 7 hours each) to bring the property up to a reasonable standard. I do not agree. I consider that the work required would have been no more than 6 hours (2 people at 3 hours each) total and therefore I award the landlord $345 for cleaning. This amount includes GST.
The landlord also claimed $345.00 for pest control. The landlord says that it was necessary to get pest control because mouse droppings were seen at the viewings at the end of the tenancy and the final inspection. The landlord says that the tenant did not take reasonable steps to eliminate rodents at the property.
The tenants say that the pre tenancy inspection photos show mouse droppings in the laundry cupboard and that the tenants tried to trap the mice near the end of the tenancy after the landlord raised the issue with them.
The property is very close to the vegetable growing fields in Pukekohe, as such both landlords and tenants should anticipate that mice and rats are likely to be problematic. The landlord tells me it did not do any pest control for rodents before the tenancy began. It is clear from the photos in the pre-tenancy inspection report that there were mice droppings in the laundry tub at the beginning of the tenancy.
Landlords have an obligation to provide the property in a reasonable condition, this includes being free from pests, likewise the tenants are responsible for maintaining pest control during the tenancy.
The amount charged is to ensure that the landlord can provide the premises pest free to their next tenants. I consider that the tenants should pay a portion of this amount, as if they had trapped the pests regularly during the tenancy then the extent of the pest control needed at the end of the tenancy may not have been so much. The amount awarded reflects the amount that the tenant is liable for.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and have granted name suppression as requested by them.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4870941 — net $633.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$345.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$138.00	Carpet Cleaning
Pest control	$75.00	Pest control
Replace furnishings: Bathroom heat lights	$55.27	Replace furnishings: Bathroom heat lights
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$633.71
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$633.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Garry Solis, John El Pia, Rochel Lachica and Zaldy Trajano to pay [The landlord/s] $633.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $633.71 Garry Solis, John El Pia, Rochel Lachica and Zaldy Trajano: $2,166.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Depaoli is the representative of the tenants who were all employed by the same company. Ms Depaoli has been appointed by the tenants as their representative in this hearing and I have accepted that she has authority to represent them and that it is appropriate for her to do so.
As Ms Depaoli is a representative of the tenants but not a tenant (party to the tenancy agreement) herself then she is not liable for any of the amounts awarded against the tenant.
[Redacted] was the tenant but he was removed from the tenancy by agreement to vary the tenancy agreement and he is therefore not liable for any of the claimed amounts.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning, heat lamps not working in a bathroom, stain removal in bedroom 2 carpet and pest control, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepts the landlord’s claims for the heat pumps ($55.27) and the landlord’s claim for stain removal of the carpet in bedroom 2 ($120.00 plus GST).

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The onus to establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
The landlord and the tenants have provided photographs and videos taken on the 2 April after the tenancy ended. Whilst those photographs show that some cleaning has been done by the tenants, there are areas of the property that require further cleaning to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This includes the oven, and drawers, cupboards and benchtop in the bathroom and kitchen, some walls had marks on them, and windowsills and windows needed cleaning.
The amount awarded by the Tribunal is only that necessary to pay for the cleaning to bring the property up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The Tribunal deals with these claims daily, and I consider the amount claimed by the landlord for the cleaning to be excessive for the work required to bring the property up to a reasonable standard. The landlord’s claim amounts to 14 hours @$50 per hour (2 people at 7 hours each) to bring the property up to a reasonable standard. I do not agree. I consider that the work required would have been no more than 6 hours (2 people at 3 hours each) total and therefore I award the landlord $345 for cleaning. This amount includes GST.
The landlord also claimed $345.00 for pest control. The landlord says that it was necessary to get pest control because mouse droppings were seen at the viewings at the end of the tenancy and the final inspection. The landlord says that the tenant did not take reasonable steps to eliminate rodents at the property.
The tenants say that the pre tenancy inspection photos show mouse droppings in the laundry cupboard and that the tenants tried to trap the mice near the end of the tenancy after the landlord raised the issue with them.
The property is very close to the vegetable growing fields in Pukekohe, as such both landlords and tenants should anticipate that mice and rats are likely to be problematic. The landlord tells me it did not do any pest control for rodents before the tenancy began. It is clear from the photos in the pre-tenancy inspection report that there were mice droppings in the laundry tub at the beginning of the tenancy.
Landlords have an obligation to provide the property in a reasonable condition, this includes being free from pests, likewise the tenants are responsible for maintaining pest control during the tenancy.
The amount charged is to ensure that the landlord can provide the premises pest free to their next tenants. I consider that the tenants should pay a portion of this amount, as if they had trapped the pests regularly during the tenancy then the extent of the pest control needed at the end of the tenancy may not have been so much. The amount awarded reflects the amount that the tenant is liable for.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and have granted name suppression as requested by them.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4870941 — Cleanliness at 19 Perla Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4870941 — Cleanliness at 19 Perla Road, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants 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 tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions