What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4910113 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4910113?

Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4910113?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4910113?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10471726-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4910113 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4910113?

Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4910113?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4910113?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10471726-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

56 Riddiford Road, Longburn, RD 5, Palmerston North 4475 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4910113 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4910113 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$50.00	Rent arrears
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$250.00
Bond	$1,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay Watson Real Estate Limited $250.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Watson Real Estate Limited: $250.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,310.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that at the end of the tenancy: a. The lawns needed mowing. b. There were some weeds that needed attention. c. There were some areas of the lawn that had become bare. d. Two garden boxes remained.
The tenant explained that other items of rubbish had been removed from the section.
The landlord submitted a quote for this work and advised that the work had not been completed.
It is the tenant’s responsibility to have mown the lawns and addressed the weeds at the end of the tenancy. While some of the lawn damage is due to fair wear and tear due to the tenant’s children enjoying the grounds, it is appropriate that the tenant contribute towards some repair and the removal of the garden boxes.
A sum has been awarded for the lawnmowing, weed eating, the sowing of some grass seed and the removal of the garden boxes.
Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have said that reasonably clean and tidy means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling (for example, rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see s45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The tenancy ended because the landlord issued a notice requiring possession of the property for extensive refurbishment. The landlord’s property manager explained that this included painting all the walls, ceilings and kitchen cabinetry as well as replacing the window furnishings. Undoubtedly this requires substantial sanding and other preparation work which will necessarily make any cleaning undertaken by the tenant at the end of the tenancy pointless.
Having reviewed the photographic evidence and discussed the state of the property and the cleaning work undertaken, I am satisfied that the tenant left the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition as the Tribunal and the District Court have interpreted the meaning of that term. The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The landlord has claimed for commercially cleaning the carpets. The landlord’s property manager advised that these were to have been replaced in the substantial refurbishment but that the landlord has decided not to do so. Only a quote was provided for this work and it has not yet been completed. This is not surprising given the substantial work to be completed which will undoubtedly soil the carpets to some extent.
The landlord has not suffered any loss because he has not expended any money in having the carpets cleaned. The landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed.
The tenant advised that they had reached partial agreement on some of the landlord’s claims with the landlord’s property manager. Such agreement was not binding on the parties once the landlord chose to file an application with the Tribunal. The Tribunal has therefore been required to come to a determination for each of the landlord’s claims based on the law and the evidence submitted by the landlord and tenant.
The landlord has only been successful in relation to two claims that the tenant had accepted (the very small amount of rent arrears) and offered to settle (the lawnmowing and gardening). The amounts awarded are modest. It is appropriate in these circumstances that the Tribunal exercise its discretion under section 95A(4) RTA to suppress the tenant’s name as publication has minimal public interest and the detriment to the tenant of publication substantially outweighs the financial sums involved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4910113 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$50.00	Rent arrears
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$250.00
Bond	$1,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay Watson Real Estate Limited $250.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Watson Real Estate Limited: $250.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,310.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their case. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 20 May 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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, and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that at the end of the tenancy: a. The lawns needed mowing. b. There were some weeds that needed attention. c. There were some areas of the lawn that had become bare. d. Two garden boxes remained.
The tenant explained that other items of rubbish had been removed from the section.
The landlord submitted a quote for this work and advised that the work had not been completed.
It is the tenant’s responsibility to have mown the lawns and addressed the weeds at the end of the tenancy. While some of the lawn damage is due to fair wear and tear due to the tenant’s children enjoying the grounds, it is appropriate that the tenant contribute towards some repair and the removal of the garden boxes.
A sum has been awarded for the lawnmowing, weed eating, the sowing of some grass seed and the removal of the garden boxes.
Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have said that reasonably clean and tidy means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling (for example, rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see s45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The tenancy ended because the landlord issued a notice requiring possession of the property for extensive refurbishment. The landlord’s property manager explained that this included painting all the walls, ceilings and kitchen cabinetry as well as replacing the window furnishings. Undoubtedly this requires substantial sanding and other preparation work which will necessarily make any cleaning undertaken by the tenant at the end of the tenancy pointless.
Having reviewed the photographic evidence and discussed the state of the property and the cleaning work undertaken, I am satisfied that the tenant left the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition as the Tribunal and the District Court have interpreted the meaning of that term. The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The landlord has claimed for commercially cleaning the carpets. The landlord’s property manager advised that these were to have been replaced in the substantial refurbishment but that the landlord has decided not to do so. Only a quote was provided for this work and it has not yet been completed. This is not surprising given the substantial work to be completed which will undoubtedly soil the carpets to some extent.
The landlord has not suffered any loss because he has not expended any money in having the carpets cleaned. The landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed.
The tenant advised that they had reached partial agreement on some of the landlord’s claims with the landlord’s property manager. Such agreement was not binding on the parties once the landlord chose to file an application with the Tribunal. The Tribunal has therefore been required to come to a determination for each of the landlord’s claims based on the law and the evidence submitted by the landlord and tenant.
The landlord has only been successful in relation to two claims that the tenant had accepted (the very small amount of rent arrears) and offered to settle (the lawnmowing and gardening). The amounts awarded are modest. It is appropriate in these circumstances that the Tribunal exercise its discretion under section 95A(4) RTA to suppress the tenant’s name as publication has minimal public interest and the detriment to the tenant of publication substantially outweighs the financial sums involved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4910113 — Rent arrears at 56 Riddiford Road, Longburn, RD 5, Palmerston North 4475

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4910113 — Rent arrears at 56 Riddiford Road, Longburn, RD 5, Palmerston North 4475

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions