What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4894340 about?

The tribunal order states: This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 19 June 2024 under

How much money was awarded in case 4894340?

Previous Order Application 4818901 D…: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $578.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894340?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10570174-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4894340 about?

The tribunal order states: This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 19 June 2024 under

How much money was awarded in case 4894340?

Previous Order Application 4818901 D…: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $578.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894340?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894340?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10570174-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

47 Bannerman Road, Morningside, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4894340 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4894340 — net $557.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$578.00		Rubbish removal
Previous order application 4818901 dated		$20.44	Previous order application 4818901 dated
Total award	$578.00	$20.44
Net award	$557.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$557.56

Order

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 19 June 2024 under application 4818901.
The landlord to pay the tenant the balance of the bond of $1222.44 immediately as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 10 July 2024.
On 19 June 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, awarding the tenant the bond. The landlord had actually been paid out the full bond by the bond centre, meaning that the tenant was unable to obtain the bond. The landlord is to pay the tenant out the balance of $1222.44 immediately. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove rubbish. Cleaning.
The obligation on tenants when they leave the tenancy is to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish (see s40 (1)(e)(i) RTA).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 , not commercially clean 2 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 3 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4
The landlord and the tenant did a walk-through of the property on the 20 October 2024, the day after the tenancy ended. The landlord confirmed to the tenant that the property looked ‘ok’ apart from rubbish that needed removing. The tenant says that she signed the bond form, thinking that she would get all of her bond back.
The landlord says that when her husband came to the property a few days later he noticed items that had not been cleaned properly such as drawers, and there were dishes left in the dishwasher, and items left in cupboards (the tenant says those belonged to the house). The landlord says that she realised that the house needed vacuuming, the bathroom needed additional cleaning and the windows needed cleaning. The landlord paid cash for a cleaner to do the work which she referred to as a ‘deep’ clean and ‘spring clean’ in the hearing.
The tenant says that the house was reasonably clean and tidy and that the landlord agreed with that at the walk through. She said that the whole purpose of the walk through is that she could have remedied any defects at that time.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenants left the house not up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I say this because the landlord agreed with the tenant at the walk through that the house appeared to be in a reasonable condition apart from the rubbish.
Landlords should expect to have to do some additional cleaning to allow the property to be relet, this is especially so when there has been a long tenancy with many occupants in the property. I regard the additional cleaning as being in 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 excess of the reasonably clean and tidy standard and more, as the landlord referred to it, as a deep or spring clean. Rubbish
I am satisfied that the tenants left rubbish at the property. The tenant said that the landlord obtained the skip bin on the 20 October and did not give the tenants a chance to get rid of the rubbish. The landlord does not need to give the tenants a chance to get rid of the rubbish. Tenants are obliged to comply with their obligations at the date the tenancy ends. If they do not do so, then the landlord can remove the rubbish and charge the tenants. I am satisfied from the photographs taken that there was a substantial amount of rubbish left at the property that needed to be removed. Whilst some of it belonged to the downstairs tenants, or the property (curtain rails) the landlord has not charged for her time in sorting the rubbish and throwing it in the skip bin, and otherwise removing it. I consider it fair to award the landlord the full cost of the skip bin. Filing fee
As the landlord has only been partly succeeded in their claim I do not grant the filing fee. Name suppression.
In the previous proceedings the Tribunal granted the tenant name suppression, as those proceedings are mentioned in this proceeding and as the tenant has been successful in defending a claim I grant her name suppression.
I also grant the landlords name suppression as requested as they have been somewhat successful in their claim and there is no public interest in having their name published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4894340 — net $557.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$578.00		Rubbish removal
Previous order application 4818901 dated		$20.44	Previous order application 4818901 dated
Total award	$578.00	$20.44
Net award	$557.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$557.56

Order

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 19 June 2024 under application 4818901.
The landlord to pay the tenant the balance of the bond of $1222.44 immediately as calculated in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 10 July 2024.
On 19 June 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, awarding the tenant the bond. The landlord had actually been paid out the full bond by the bond centre, meaning that the tenant was unable to obtain the bond. The landlord is to pay the tenant out the balance of $1222.44 immediately. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove rubbish. Cleaning.
The obligation on tenants when they leave the tenancy is to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish (see s40 (1)(e)(i) RTA).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 , not commercially clean 2 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 3 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4
The landlord and the tenant did a walk-through of the property on the 20 October 2024, the day after the tenancy ended. The landlord confirmed to the tenant that the property looked ‘ok’ apart from rubbish that needed removing. The tenant says that she signed the bond form, thinking that she would get all of her bond back.
The landlord says that when her husband came to the property a few days later he noticed items that had not been cleaned properly such as drawers, and there were dishes left in the dishwasher, and items left in cupboards (the tenant says those belonged to the house). The landlord says that she realised that the house needed vacuuming, the bathroom needed additional cleaning and the windows needed cleaning. The landlord paid cash for a cleaner to do the work which she referred to as a ‘deep’ clean and ‘spring clean’ in the hearing.
The tenant says that the house was reasonably clean and tidy and that the landlord agreed with that at the walk through. She said that the whole purpose of the walk through is that she could have remedied any defects at that time.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenants left the house not up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I say this because the landlord agreed with the tenant at the walk through that the house appeared to be in a reasonable condition apart from the rubbish.
Landlords should expect to have to do some additional cleaning to allow the property to be relet, this is especially so when there has been a long tenancy with many occupants in the property. I regard the additional cleaning as being in 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 excess of the reasonably clean and tidy standard and more, as the landlord referred to it, as a deep or spring clean. Rubbish
I am satisfied that the tenants left rubbish at the property. The tenant said that the landlord obtained the skip bin on the 20 October and did not give the tenants a chance to get rid of the rubbish. The landlord does not need to give the tenants a chance to get rid of the rubbish. Tenants are obliged to comply with their obligations at the date the tenancy ends. If they do not do so, then the landlord can remove the rubbish and charge the tenants. I am satisfied from the photographs taken that there was a substantial amount of rubbish left at the property that needed to be removed. Whilst some of it belonged to the downstairs tenants, or the property (curtain rails) the landlord has not charged for her time in sorting the rubbish and throwing it in the skip bin, and otherwise removing it. I consider it fair to award the landlord the full cost of the skip bin. Filing fee
As the landlord has only been partly succeeded in their claim I do not grant the filing fee. Name suppression.
In the previous proceedings the Tribunal granted the tenant name suppression, as those proceedings are mentioned in this proceeding and as the tenant has been successful in defending a claim I grant her name suppression.
I also grant the landlords name suppression as requested as they have been somewhat successful in their claim and there is no public interest in having their name published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894340 — Tenancy dispute at 47 Bannerman Road, Morningside, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894340 — Tenancy dispute at 47 Bannerman Road, Morningside, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions