What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4958421 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Fraser Flynn Limited As Agent For H Todd $320.50 from

How much money was awarded in case 4958421?

Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $151.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4958421?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4958421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10805108-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4958421 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Fraser Flynn Limited As Agent For H Todd $320.50 from

How much money was awarded in case 4958421?

Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $151.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4958421?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4958421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10805108-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

148A Milton Street, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4958421 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4958421 — net $320.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$69.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$151.50	Rubbish removal
Net award	$320.50
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$320.50

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Fraser Flynn Limited As Agent For H Todd $320.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Fraser Flynn Limited As Agent For H Todd: $320.50 [The tenant/s]: $1,679.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Ternus represented the landlord.
An oral decision was issued at the hearing; this decision clarifies and explains the orders.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord as applicant has the burden to prove their respective claims. The standard of proof required is the usual civil standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Put another way, they must persuade me that what they say is more likely than not to be the case.
The claim for rubbish removal was consented to given an oversight on remaining rubbish.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord.
The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house.
The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
Section 40 of the RTA requires tenants to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, i.e. before they leave. There is no obligation nor expectation on landlords to allow access to the premises subsequently to remedy any breaches.
Both parties provided photos of the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenants’ photos and video were generalised and from a wide aspect. The landlord’s photos were close-ups of all of the perceived failures.
The tenants’ photos indicated a premise that was reasonably clean and tidy. Their evidence was that they had professional cleaners and carpet cleaners attend to the property before they left.
The landlord’s photos depicted dust under a heater, in corners and on skirtings, marks on walls, debris on the floor, mould in window tracks, marks on kitchen cabinetry and the oven, and some staining on the carpet.
An invoice from the cleaner is claimed for $575 and one from the carpet cleaner for $356.50. The latter invoice indicates that stains in bedrooms 1 and 3 were removed and the stain in the dining room was heavily reduced by the cleaning. The landlord agrees this is an older carpet and notes that the tenants have not been charged for pre-existing stains.
Having carefully considered both parties’ evidence I am satisfied that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy, but it was close. What should have additionally been done were things such as cleaning off the marks on the walls, vacuum and moping the kitchen floor and some further wiping and vacuuming. The landlord’s professional cleaners however took the property to a standard in excess of what the RTA requires.
I accordingly award part reimbursement of both invoices to reflect the work that was required to bring the property to the standard expected of tenants 1 by the RTA, and what is considered fair 2 and reasonable in the circumstances.
As discussed at the hearing the tenants had asked if their cleaner could come and rectify the issues raised, unfortunately the landlord had already contracted their own to do the work. Whilst it is best practice for landlords to undertake the inspection with tenants and then allow them to rectify issues, they are not legally obliged to. Other
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. The tenants seek suppression and as they were successful to an extent in their defence, I approve that.
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii)RTA 2 Section 85 RTA

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4958421 — net $320.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$69.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$151.50	Rubbish removal
Net award	$320.50
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$320.50

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Fraser Flynn Limited As Agent For H Todd $320.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Fraser Flynn Limited As Agent For H Todd: $320.50 [The tenant/s]: $1,679.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Ternus represented the landlord.
An oral decision was issued at the hearing; this decision clarifies and explains the orders.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord as applicant has the burden to prove their respective claims. The standard of proof required is the usual civil standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Put another way, they must persuade me that what they say is more likely than not to be the case.
The claim for rubbish removal was consented to given an oversight on remaining rubbish.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord.
The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house.
The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
Section 40 of the RTA requires tenants to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, i.e. before they leave. There is no obligation nor expectation on landlords to allow access to the premises subsequently to remedy any breaches.
Both parties provided photos of the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenants’ photos and video were generalised and from a wide aspect. The landlord’s photos were close-ups of all of the perceived failures.
The tenants’ photos indicated a premise that was reasonably clean and tidy. Their evidence was that they had professional cleaners and carpet cleaners attend to the property before they left.
The landlord’s photos depicted dust under a heater, in corners and on skirtings, marks on walls, debris on the floor, mould in window tracks, marks on kitchen cabinetry and the oven, and some staining on the carpet.
An invoice from the cleaner is claimed for $575 and one from the carpet cleaner for $356.50. The latter invoice indicates that stains in bedrooms 1 and 3 were removed and the stain in the dining room was heavily reduced by the cleaning. The landlord agrees this is an older carpet and notes that the tenants have not been charged for pre-existing stains.
Having carefully considered both parties’ evidence I am satisfied that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy, but it was close. What should have additionally been done were things such as cleaning off the marks on the walls, vacuum and moping the kitchen floor and some further wiping and vacuuming. The landlord’s professional cleaners however took the property to a standard in excess of what the RTA requires.
I accordingly award part reimbursement of both invoices to reflect the work that was required to bring the property to the standard expected of tenants 1 by the RTA, and what is considered fair 2 and reasonable in the circumstances.
As discussed at the hearing the tenants had asked if their cleaner could come and rectify the issues raised, unfortunately the landlord had already contracted their own to do the work. Whilst it is best practice for landlords to undertake the inspection with tenants and then allow them to rectify issues, they are not legally obliged to. Other
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. The tenants seek suppression and as they were successful to an extent in their defence, I approve that.
As both parties have been partially successful in their applications it is not appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and those costs should lie where they fall. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii)RTA 2 Section 85 RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 4958421 — Cleanliness at 148A Milton Street, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4958421 — Cleanliness at 148A Milton Street, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

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