What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4971595?

The tribunal order states: Stephen Michael Hickey must immediately pay Abernethy & Burke

How much money was awarded in case 4971595?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $782.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971595?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971595?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11208705-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4971595?

The tribunal order states: Stephen Michael Hickey must immediately pay Abernethy & Burke

How much money was awarded in case 4971595?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $782.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4971595?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4971595?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11208705-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Karauria Lane, Orewa, Auckland 0931 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4971595 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4971595. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and garden work	$782.00	Cleaning and garden work
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Bond	$977.50

Order

Stephen Michael Hickey must immediately pay Abernethy & Burke Management Limited as agent for Rajesh & Latika Sharma $809.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $977.50 (6221804-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Abernethy & Burke Management Limited as agent for Rajesh & Latika Sharma: $809.00 Stephen Michael Hickey: $168.50

Reasons

Jonathan Burke attended the hearing for the landlord.
Stephen Hickey attended in person.
Mr Hickey applies for return of the bond.
The landlord applies against the bond for the cost of cleaning and garden work, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The issue for determination is whether the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that Mr Hickey left the premises less than reasonably clean and tidy, and if so, to what extent the Tribunal should find Mr Hickey liable for the cost of making the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Did Mr Hickey leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Mr Hickey submits the tenant left the premises less than reasonably clean in many respects. It is not so much that Mr Hickey left the premises a dirty shambles, it is more an accumulation of many minor areas of inattention.
Mr Hickey submits that he did leave the premises reasonably clean. The tenancy began on 23 February 2020 and ended more than four years later on 31 July 2024. Over the more than four years of the tenancy there was bound to be wear and tear and an accumulation of grime that could not be removed with ordinary reasonable cleaning. Legal principles
At the end of their tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
The landlord must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 2 :.
Similarly, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. “Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an average bystander. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 RTA, s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 RTA, s 45(1)(a).
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 3
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Discussion
The landlord produced a well-compiled gallery selected photographs of cleaning or tidiness problems in various parts of the premises which contrasted the same area with entry photographs showing the same areas had originally been reasonably clean.
The tenant submitted 21 photographs that did not tend to show any lack of cleanliness.
The landlord’s photographs indicate: in the master bedroom, the wall by the head of the where the bed was had some residue, the light switch and adjacent wall was grubby, the windows still had cleaning spray residue, the blinds needed wiping; in the study, there was some dust on part of the skirting boards; in bedroom 3, the blinds needed wiping, the windows had cleaning spray residue, the door edge and door jamb were grubby around the door handle, the carpet had a small red stain; in bedroom 4, the blinds needed wiping, door near handle grubby; ensuite bathroom, hairs on skirting boards toilet, and handbasin; entrance, floor unclean, dirty hand mark on wall; patio, weeds; kitchen, oven drawer not reasonably clean, a drawer not wiped; laundry, tub not wiped, door near handle grubby; heat pump filter not cleaned; family room, dust on electric switch facings, windows not clean; and bathroom, toilet not completely clean; floor and skirting not clean, handbasin needing cleaning.
The tenant’s photographs were generally taken from a mid-distance and the resolution was poor. They do not usefully contradict the landlord’s photographs which were generally taken close-up in better lighting and have better resolution.
The were so many instances of lack of cleanliness inside the house that I am satisfied that overall the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
The outdoor patio area needed weeding. 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. Conclusion on reasonable cleanliness and tidiness and quantification of damages
I find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s contractor’s invoice is reasonably priced by reference to the market for commercial cleaning.
An adjustment is to be made for the internal cleaning to account for the standard of cleanliness after professional cleaning being higher than a reasonable standard and to recognise the lack of cleanliness was not drastically below a reasonable standard.
The Tribunal orders 80 per cent of the internal cleaning.
For the carpet cleaning, and adjustment of 80 percent is appropriate also. The offending stain did not come out but the carpets in general benefitted from a full clean.
The garden was also liable to be returned to a higher than reasonable standard that Mr Hickey could have achieved. An allowance of 80 percent is appropriate for the garden work also. Filing fee
The tenant must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. Bond
The Bond Centre is to pay out the bond in accordance with this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4971595. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and garden work	$782.00	Cleaning and garden work
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Bond	$977.50

Order

Stephen Michael Hickey must immediately pay Abernethy & Burke Management Limited as agent for Rajesh & Latika Sharma $809.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $977.50 (6221804-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Abernethy & Burke Management Limited as agent for Rajesh & Latika Sharma: $809.00 Stephen Michael Hickey: $168.50

Reasons

Jonathan Burke attended the hearing for the landlord.
Stephen Hickey attended in person.
Mr Hickey applies for return of the bond.
The landlord applies against the bond for the cost of cleaning and garden work, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The issue for determination is whether the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that Mr Hickey left the premises less than reasonably clean and tidy, and if so, to what extent the Tribunal should find Mr Hickey liable for the cost of making the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Did Mr Hickey leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Mr Hickey submits the tenant left the premises less than reasonably clean in many respects. It is not so much that Mr Hickey left the premises a dirty shambles, it is more an accumulation of many minor areas of inattention.
Mr Hickey submits that he did leave the premises reasonably clean. The tenancy began on 23 February 2020 and ended more than four years later on 31 July 2024. Over the more than four years of the tenancy there was bound to be wear and tear and an accumulation of grime that could not be removed with ordinary reasonable cleaning. Legal principles
At the end of their tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
The landlord must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 2 :.
Similarly, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. “Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an average bystander. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 RTA, s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 RTA, s 45(1)(a).
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 3
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Discussion
The landlord produced a well-compiled gallery selected photographs of cleaning or tidiness problems in various parts of the premises which contrasted the same area with entry photographs showing the same areas had originally been reasonably clean.
The tenant submitted 21 photographs that did not tend to show any lack of cleanliness.
The landlord’s photographs indicate: in the master bedroom, the wall by the head of the where the bed was had some residue, the light switch and adjacent wall was grubby, the windows still had cleaning spray residue, the blinds needed wiping; in the study, there was some dust on part of the skirting boards; in bedroom 3, the blinds needed wiping, the windows had cleaning spray residue, the door edge and door jamb were grubby around the door handle, the carpet had a small red stain; in bedroom 4, the blinds needed wiping, door near handle grubby; ensuite bathroom, hairs on skirting boards toilet, and handbasin; entrance, floor unclean, dirty hand mark on wall; patio, weeds; kitchen, oven drawer not reasonably clean, a drawer not wiped; laundry, tub not wiped, door near handle grubby; heat pump filter not cleaned; family room, dust on electric switch facings, windows not clean; and bathroom, toilet not completely clean; floor and skirting not clean, handbasin needing cleaning.
The tenant’s photographs were generally taken from a mid-distance and the resolution was poor. They do not usefully contradict the landlord’s photographs which were generally taken close-up in better lighting and have better resolution.
The were so many instances of lack of cleanliness inside the house that I am satisfied that overall the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
The outdoor patio area needed weeding. 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. Conclusion on reasonable cleanliness and tidiness and quantification of damages
I find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s contractor’s invoice is reasonably priced by reference to the market for commercial cleaning.
An adjustment is to be made for the internal cleaning to account for the standard of cleanliness after professional cleaning being higher than a reasonable standard and to recognise the lack of cleanliness was not drastically below a reasonable standard.
The Tribunal orders 80 per cent of the internal cleaning.
For the carpet cleaning, and adjustment of 80 percent is appropriate also. The offending stain did not come out but the carpets in general benefitted from a full clean.
The garden was also liable to be returned to a higher than reasonable standard that Mr Hickey could have achieved. An allowance of 80 percent is appropriate for the garden work also. Filing fee
The tenant must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. Bond
The Bond Centre is to pay out the bond in accordance with this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971595 — Cleanliness at 8 Karauria Lane, Orewa, Auckland 0931

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4971595 — Cleanliness at 8 Karauria Lane, Orewa, Auckland 0931

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did Mr Hickey leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did Mr Hickey leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions