How much money was awarded in case 4971453?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971453?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11226576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4971453?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971453?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971453?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11226576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4971453 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4971453 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4971453 — 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	$2,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

Aspire Property Management As Agent For Lauren Moorby And Jessica Moorby must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.

The tenants applied for release of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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

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 emphasis is mine).

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).

The landlord provided extensive photos showing the premises both at the commencement of the tenancy and at the end. The landlord also provided an invoice for cleaning carried out on Sunday 28 July 2024. I record that the invoice is for a “late notice exit clean on Sunday 28 July”. The landlord was unable to say whether this being a late notice clean on a Sunday incurred a premium.

At the end of the tenancy, the landlord moved back in to live in the premises. The tenancy had ended on 23 July 2024.

The photos provided by the landlord did not show areas where the premises were not at least reasonably clean and tidy. This may have been due to deficiencies with the camera, but what ever may be the reason, the burden of proving that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy falls on the landlord. I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient proof to relieve them of that evidentiary burden. The landlord application is dismissed.

As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenants have been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4971453 — 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	$2,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Aspire Property Management As Agent For Lauren Moorby And Jessica Moorby must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.
The tenants applied for release of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

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

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 emphasis is mine).
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).
The landlord provided extensive photos showing the premises both at the commencement of the tenancy and at the end. The landlord also provided an invoice for cleaning carried out on Sunday 28 July 2024. I record that the invoice is for a “late notice exit clean on Sunday 28 July”. The landlord was unable to say whether this being a late notice clean on a Sunday incurred a premium.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord moved back in to live in the premises. The tenancy had ended on 23 July 2024.
The photos provided by the landlord did not show areas where the premises were not at least reasonably clean and tidy. This may have been due to deficiencies with the camera, but what ever may be the reason, the burden of proving that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy falls on the landlord. I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient proof to relieve them of that evidentiary burden. The landlord application is dismissed.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenants have been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971453 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971453 — Tenancy dispute

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