What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4879068 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4879068?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $128.00 awarded to landlord; Removing Rusted Padlock: $92.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879068?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10831774-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4879068 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4879068?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $128.00 awarded to landlord; Removing Rusted Padlock: $92.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879068?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10831774-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15B Campbell Road, Takapuna, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4879068 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879068. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Removing rusted padlock	$92.00		Removing rusted padlock
Cleaning	$128.00		Cleaning
Reimbursement of carpet cleaning cost		$220.00	Reimbursement of carpet cleaning cost
Total award	$220.00	$220.00

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The parties’ claims are allowed as set out in this order. All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by video.
The tenant attended with his daughter. An interpreter versed in the Japanese language attended to assist the tenant.
Noujan Nayeri attended for the landlord.
The tenant has applied for return of the bond and reimbursement of the cost of cleaning the carpets.
The landlord has applied for the cost of general cleaning, blind cleaning, and removing a rusted padlock.
The tenancy was a long one of about nine years. The tenancy appears to have gone well but has ended in disagreement over move-out cleaning issues.
The tenant moved out on about 26 April 2024 and thought he had left the premises reasonably clean. However, the landlord believes the tenant left the premises were left in a less than reasonably clean condition.
The tenant had the carpets professionally cleaned on exit as required by a term in the tenancy agreement. Such terms are not lawful because they require something in addition to the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean. The tenant had a cat but says the carpet was reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy prior to the carpet cleaning.
Adding to the tenant’s sense of unfairness, the landlord removed the carpets after the end of the tenancy, so cleaning the carpets was pointless.

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

The landlord must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy: s 45(1)(a) of the RTA.
Similarly, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition: RTA, s 40(1)(e)(iii).
“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. 1 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12.
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.
The landlord could not produce any photographs to show the condition of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, so there is no point of comparison to contrast the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy to. However, the tenant accepted the premises was reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy nine years earlier.
I have looked at the parties’ photographs and heard evidence and submissions on this issue.
I consider the premises were not left reasonably clean due to some minor oversights. Most notably, the oven needed more cleaning, and some of the bathroom and kitchen surfaces needed more work.
I estimate that the work to bring the premises are to the legal standard would have taken a professional cleaner about two hours.
I shall return to the figure that will be ordered for cleaning shortly.
The landlord claimed for the cost of professionally cleaning the blinds. I do not find it proved that the blinds were not left reasonably clean. Tenants should not ordinarily be liable for professionally cleaning blinds at the end of the tenancy. The circumstances are not such that an order should be made for blind cleaning in this case. Cost of carpet cleaning
It was not proven that the carpet was not reasonably clean and therefore required cleaning.
The landlord should not have told the tenant that he had to clean the carpet. The term in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenant to clean the carpet was not lawful.
The landlord must reimburse the tenant for the cost of having the carpet cleaned. Conclusion
The tenant agrees to reimburse the landlord $92.00 for removing the rusted padlock.
The Tribunal requires the landlord to reimburse the tenant $220.00 for their carpet cleaning expenditure.
I find it apposite to order the tenant to compensate the landlord $128.00 for the cost of cleaning.
The upshot is that neither party owes the other anything.
The Bond Centre is to release the bond to the tenant. Filing fee
No order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee because both parties have enjoyed a degree of success in their claims. Non-publication
The tenant seeks an order for non-publication.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in their application. I do not consider that the publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances.
The tenant’s request for non-publication is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879068. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Removing rusted padlock	$92.00		Removing rusted padlock
Cleaning	$128.00		Cleaning
Reimbursement of carpet cleaning cost		$220.00	Reimbursement of carpet cleaning cost
Total award	$220.00	$220.00

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The parties’ claims are allowed as set out in this order. All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams by video.
The tenant attended with his daughter. An interpreter versed in the Japanese language attended to assist the tenant.
Noujan Nayeri attended for the landlord.
The tenant has applied for return of the bond and reimbursement of the cost of cleaning the carpets.
The landlord has applied for the cost of general cleaning, blind cleaning, and removing a rusted padlock.
The tenancy was a long one of about nine years. The tenancy appears to have gone well but has ended in disagreement over move-out cleaning issues.
The tenant moved out on about 26 April 2024 and thought he had left the premises reasonably clean. However, the landlord believes the tenant left the premises were left in a less than reasonably clean condition.
The tenant had the carpets professionally cleaned on exit as required by a term in the tenancy agreement. Such terms are not lawful because they require something in addition to the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean. The tenant had a cat but says the carpet was reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy prior to the carpet cleaning.
Adding to the tenant’s sense of unfairness, the landlord removed the carpets after the end of the tenancy, so cleaning the carpets was pointless.

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

The landlord must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy: s 45(1)(a) of the RTA.
Similarly, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition: RTA, s 40(1)(e)(iii).
“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. 1 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12.
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.
The landlord could not produce any photographs to show the condition of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy, so there is no point of comparison to contrast the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy to. However, the tenant accepted the premises was reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy nine years earlier.
I have looked at the parties’ photographs and heard evidence and submissions on this issue.
I consider the premises were not left reasonably clean due to some minor oversights. Most notably, the oven needed more cleaning, and some of the bathroom and kitchen surfaces needed more work.
I estimate that the work to bring the premises are to the legal standard would have taken a professional cleaner about two hours.
I shall return to the figure that will be ordered for cleaning shortly.
The landlord claimed for the cost of professionally cleaning the blinds. I do not find it proved that the blinds were not left reasonably clean. Tenants should not ordinarily be liable for professionally cleaning blinds at the end of the tenancy. The circumstances are not such that an order should be made for blind cleaning in this case. Cost of carpet cleaning
It was not proven that the carpet was not reasonably clean and therefore required cleaning.
The landlord should not have told the tenant that he had to clean the carpet. The term in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenant to clean the carpet was not lawful.
The landlord must reimburse the tenant for the cost of having the carpet cleaned. Conclusion
The tenant agrees to reimburse the landlord $92.00 for removing the rusted padlock.
The Tribunal requires the landlord to reimburse the tenant $220.00 for their carpet cleaning expenditure.
I find it apposite to order the tenant to compensate the landlord $128.00 for the cost of cleaning.
The upshot is that neither party owes the other anything.
The Bond Centre is to release the bond to the tenant. Filing fee
No order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee because both parties have enjoyed a degree of success in their claims. Non-publication
The tenant seeks an order for non-publication.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in their application. I do not consider that the publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances.
The tenant’s request for non-publication is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879068 — Cleanliness at 15B Campbell Road, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879068 — Cleanliness at 15B Campbell Road, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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