What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5035630 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5035630?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5035630?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5035630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11109902-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5035630 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5035630?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5035630?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5035630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11109902-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 402, 35 Abel Smith St, Te Aro, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5035630 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5035630 — net $377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning	$350.00	cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$377.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$377.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Ben Schofield must pay [The tenant/s] $377.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application for reduction of the fixed term tenancy was withdrawn.
The tenant has claimed compensation for cleaning in the amount of $350 and for $113 for cleaning products. This relates to cleaning done by the tenant at the start of the tenancy to reduce a smell in the studio apartment. The landlord agreed there was a “mild smell” after the last tenants moved out and offered commercial cleaning. The tenant preferred to do his own cleaning, which has taken longer than expected.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. See section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1086 (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.
Likewise, the RTA does not require the premises to be provided 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. Smells are especially hard to prove.
The tenant provided me with photos taken before and during the cleaning process. I find the two rangehood filters needed to be replaced at the start of the tenancy. It seems most likely to me the rangehood smelled at the start of the tenancy and this would have affected the smell in the whole apartment. I find the blinds were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. It seems likely that the carpets should have been commercially cleaned between tenants. It seems most likely to me the sink waste would have smelled as well.
I find the landlord should pay compensation in the amount of $350. This seems reasonable to me based on the likely cost of commercial cleaners, carpet cleaning, and to clean the blinds. I have not allowed the claim for cleaning products because the tenant will be able to use these again.
The apartment was rented fully furnished. The parties have agreed the tenant can take down the blinds and install his own curtains. The landlord will store the blinds during the tenancy. The tenant wants the landlord to remove the mattress because it smells. I have not been provided with any photos which show the mattress is not in a reasonable condition, and there is no agreement the mattress smells. I am not persuaded there has been a breach and the landlord is therefore not required to remove and store the mattress.
Finally, I note the discussions during the hearing about the tenant’s responsibility to notify the landlord about any maintenance during the tenancy, and not carrying out maintenance without the landlord’s explicit consent. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
I am using my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant. The parties had hoped the matter would be resolved at mediation, which is confidential, but the matter was scheduled for a hearing instead. I find there is no public interest in the tenant’s name, and it could be detrimental to his future tenancy reference checks if he is named.
I have considered the landlord’s submission that the only public interest is in the law. I accept the breach was minor and parties are encouraged to use the Tribunal to resolve issues. Had the issue only been a smell I would have allowed suppression, because smells affect people differently. However, my finding is that the tenancy premises were not provided in a reasonable condition and there is public interest in that. This means the landlord will be named.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5035630 — net $377.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: cleaning	$350.00	cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$377.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$377.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Ben Schofield must pay [The tenant/s] $377.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application for reduction of the fixed term tenancy was withdrawn.
The tenant has claimed compensation for cleaning in the amount of $350 and for $113 for cleaning products. This relates to cleaning done by the tenant at the start of the tenancy to reduce a smell in the studio apartment. The landlord agreed there was a “mild smell” after the last tenants moved out and offered commercial cleaning. The tenant preferred to do his own cleaning, which has taken longer than expected.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness. See section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1086 (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.
Likewise, the RTA does not require the premises to be provided 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. Smells are especially hard to prove.
The tenant provided me with photos taken before and during the cleaning process. I find the two rangehood filters needed to be replaced at the start of the tenancy. It seems most likely to me the rangehood smelled at the start of the tenancy and this would have affected the smell in the whole apartment. I find the blinds were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy. It seems likely that the carpets should have been commercially cleaned between tenants. It seems most likely to me the sink waste would have smelled as well.
I find the landlord should pay compensation in the amount of $350. This seems reasonable to me based on the likely cost of commercial cleaners, carpet cleaning, and to clean the blinds. I have not allowed the claim for cleaning products because the tenant will be able to use these again.
The apartment was rented fully furnished. The parties have agreed the tenant can take down the blinds and install his own curtains. The landlord will store the blinds during the tenancy. The tenant wants the landlord to remove the mattress because it smells. I have not been provided with any photos which show the mattress is not in a reasonable condition, and there is no agreement the mattress smells. I am not persuaded there has been a breach and the landlord is therefore not required to remove and store the mattress.
Finally, I note the discussions during the hearing about the tenant’s responsibility to notify the landlord about any maintenance during the tenancy, and not carrying out maintenance without the landlord’s explicit consent. Other orders
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord has made an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
I am using my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant. The parties had hoped the matter would be resolved at mediation, which is confidential, but the matter was scheduled for a hearing instead. I find there is no public interest in the tenant’s name, and it could be detrimental to his future tenancy reference checks if he is named.
I have considered the landlord’s submission that the only public interest is in the law. I accept the breach was minor and parties are encouraged to use the Tribunal to resolve issues. Had the issue only been a smell I would have allowed suppression, because smells affect people differently. However, my finding is that the tenancy premises were not provided in a reasonable condition and there is public interest in that. This means the landlord will be named.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5035630 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Apartment 402, 35 Abel Smith St, Te Aro,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5035630 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Apartment 402, 35 Abel Smith St, Te Aro,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions