What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939606 about?

The tribunal order states: Pro Management (Auckland) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00

How much money was awarded in case 4939606?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939606?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939606?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11012894-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939606 about?

The tribunal order states: Pro Management (Auckland) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00

How much money was awarded in case 4939606?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939606?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939606?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11012894-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4939606 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939606 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

Pro Management (Auckland) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The tenant seeks release of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant application was filed with the Tribunal on 17 July 2024 . The landlord was notified of the claim by Tenancy Services that day. A notice informing the parties of today’s hearing was sent to the parties on 3 September 2024.
The day before the matter was to be heard, the landlord filed a counterclaim seeking compensation for cleaning costs, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord explained the delay by saying that she had been out of the country. I do not place any great weight on that explanation as a landlord is required to appoint an agent where they anticipate being outside New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days (see s16A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Bond money is deemed to be tenant money until such time as a landlord successfully proves that they are owed money by the tenant as a result of a breach of the Tenancy Agreement or the RTA.
The landlord claims that they have incurred carpet cleaning costs of $184.00 and general cleaning of $517.50, being a total of $701.50. The landlord accepts that the figure claimed in their application to the Tribunal ($747.50) was an error on their part.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Where a landlord seeks compensation for cleaning, the Tribunal would generally expect to see photographs of the condition of the premises taken soon after the tenant has vacated and copies of invoices from the cleaners. Neither has been provided by the landlord. The only photographic evidence was provided by the tenant. The tenant says that the photos provided to the Tribunal, were actually taken by the landlord. This was an eight year tenancy. The photos show premises which were reasonably clean and tidy when consideration of the length to the tenancy is taken into account. No doubt there have been many inspections completed during the course of such a lengthy tenancy. No evidence of previous concerns raised by the landlord were proffered. One might have expected in the circumstances to have been provided with previous inspection reports showing that the tenant had not kept the premises reasonably clean and tidy or 14 day breach notices to that effect.
In light of the time that the landlord has had to file any supporting evidence, I was not prepared to delay this matter further by allowing an adjournment for the landlord to file further documents. Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal to deal with matters in a manner likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. In light of that guidance, I dismiss the landlord application.
The bond is to be released to the tenant in full.
As the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in this hearing and suppression of the tenant name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and the landlord application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4939606 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$2,280.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

Pro Management (Auckland) Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).
The tenant seeks release of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant application was filed with the Tribunal on 17 July 2024 . The landlord was notified of the claim by Tenancy Services that day. A notice informing the parties of today’s hearing was sent to the parties on 3 September 2024.
The day before the matter was to be heard, the landlord filed a counterclaim seeking compensation for cleaning costs, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord explained the delay by saying that she had been out of the country. I do not place any great weight on that explanation as a landlord is required to appoint an agent where they anticipate being outside New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days (see s16A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Bond money is deemed to be tenant money until such time as a landlord successfully proves that they are owed money by the tenant as a result of a breach of the Tenancy Agreement or the RTA.
The landlord claims that they have incurred carpet cleaning costs of $184.00 and general cleaning of $517.50, being a total of $701.50. The landlord accepts that the figure claimed in their application to the Tribunal ($747.50) was an error on their part.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Where a landlord seeks compensation for cleaning, the Tribunal would generally expect to see photographs of the condition of the premises taken soon after the tenant has vacated and copies of invoices from the cleaners. Neither has been provided by the landlord. The only photographic evidence was provided by the tenant. The tenant says that the photos provided to the Tribunal, were actually taken by the landlord. This was an eight year tenancy. The photos show premises which were reasonably clean and tidy when consideration of the length to the tenancy is taken into account. No doubt there have been many inspections completed during the course of such a lengthy tenancy. No evidence of previous concerns raised by the landlord were proffered. One might have expected in the circumstances to have been provided with previous inspection reports showing that the tenant had not kept the premises reasonably clean and tidy or 14 day breach notices to that effect.
In light of the time that the landlord has had to file any supporting evidence, I was not prepared to delay this matter further by allowing an adjournment for the landlord to file further documents. Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal to deal with matters in a manner likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. In light of that guidance, I dismiss the landlord application.
The bond is to be released to the tenant in full.
As the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful in this hearing and suppression of the tenant name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and the landlord application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939606 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939606 — Tenancy dispute

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