What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5044581 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 5044581?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5044581?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5044581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11515229-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5044581 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 5044581?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5044581?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5044581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11515229-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5044581 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5044581 — net $227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning (part	$200.00	Cleaning (part
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$227.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$227.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenant application 5044581 is dismissed.
Debra Howell and Cody Howell must pay [The landlord/s] $227.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, this was a continuation hearing via teleconference. The first hearing was adjourned to join the second respondent, as explained in the adjourning order.
The tenant had applied for compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord had applied compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The bond has previously been released to the tenants.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Tenant claims
The tenants claimed the landlord and owners breached the Residential Tenancies Act by giving them a notice to vacate within 90 days in order to sell the property, and subsequently, failing to place the house on the market within 90 days after the tenancy ended.
The success of any tenant claim was dependant on establishing the above breach.
At that time 1 , the Residential Tenancies Act 18986 required where a landlord, wanting to terminate a periodic tenancy so the premises could be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition; gave at least 90 days’ notice to the tenant of this.
This tenancy bridged two fixed terms before becoming periodic after the end of the second fixed term. This was at the instigation of the landlord. The preference of the tenant was a further fixed-term period.
During the tenancy a property valuation was gained. The tenant was reassured by the agent that there was no intention to sell. That, and any other statements by the agent are considered made in in good faith and there was no misrepresentation. Such statements do not bind the owner here.
A simple definition of placing a house on the market is to offer it for sale. An offer may be considered an indication of willingness to do something that is capable of being converted by acceptance into a legally binding contract.
It is not considered a requirement for marketing to involve any public display of such. There are a number of reasons why a vendor may choose not to. The lack of public display could cause some angst to a reluctantly departed tenant.
The owner provide an email dated 6 August 2024, some two weeks after the tenancy ended. It read, in part: “We're writing to express our interest in buying your property at 336 Main Road Spring Grove. Firstly we would both like to thank you for giving us this opportunity, we really appreciate it. We wanted to reach out to you before putting a formal offer on paper and involving our lawyer etc.”
Having heard from the owner that the above offer was from a staff member and concluded privately, I accept the intention was to sell the premises and the notice to terminate valid. The later date of actual settlement is of no bearing.
Given my determination there was no breach, there are no grounds for compensation or orders of exemplary damages. The impact, especially the timing, on the tenants is real, notwithstanding the determination here. The comingling of home and business appears to have amplified the impact on the tenants.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the notice to terminate was a breach by the landlord.
The tenant application is dismissed. 1 removed on 30 January 2025, by section 26(1) of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 (2024 No 52). Landlord claims
The landlord claims the tenants did not 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.
The tenants did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Several areas required further cleaning.
The landlord provided an invoice of $305.00 and photographs in support of the claim for compensation.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. 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. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied there was a need for further cleaning but given the overall circumstances I consider a part-compensation of $200.00 compensates for cleaning to a reasonable standard.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [landlord] has substantially succeeded with its claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5044581 — net $227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning (part	$200.00	Cleaning (part
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$227.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$227.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenant application 5044581 is dismissed.
Debra Howell and Cody Howell must pay [The landlord/s] $227.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, this was a continuation hearing via teleconference. The first hearing was adjourned to join the second respondent, as explained in the adjourning order.
The tenant had applied for compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord had applied compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The bond has previously been released to the tenants.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, only that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Tenant claims
The tenants claimed the landlord and owners breached the Residential Tenancies Act by giving them a notice to vacate within 90 days in order to sell the property, and subsequently, failing to place the house on the market within 90 days after the tenancy ended.
The success of any tenant claim was dependant on establishing the above breach.
At that time 1 , the Residential Tenancies Act 18986 required where a landlord, wanting to terminate a periodic tenancy so the premises could be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition; gave at least 90 days’ notice to the tenant of this.
This tenancy bridged two fixed terms before becoming periodic after the end of the second fixed term. This was at the instigation of the landlord. The preference of the tenant was a further fixed-term period.
During the tenancy a property valuation was gained. The tenant was reassured by the agent that there was no intention to sell. That, and any other statements by the agent are considered made in in good faith and there was no misrepresentation. Such statements do not bind the owner here.
A simple definition of placing a house on the market is to offer it for sale. An offer may be considered an indication of willingness to do something that is capable of being converted by acceptance into a legally binding contract.
It is not considered a requirement for marketing to involve any public display of such. There are a number of reasons why a vendor may choose not to. The lack of public display could cause some angst to a reluctantly departed tenant.
The owner provide an email dated 6 August 2024, some two weeks after the tenancy ended. It read, in part: “We're writing to express our interest in buying your property at 336 Main Road Spring Grove. Firstly we would both like to thank you for giving us this opportunity, we really appreciate it. We wanted to reach out to you before putting a formal offer on paper and involving our lawyer etc.”
Having heard from the owner that the above offer was from a staff member and concluded privately, I accept the intention was to sell the premises and the notice to terminate valid. The later date of actual settlement is of no bearing.
Given my determination there was no breach, there are no grounds for compensation or orders of exemplary damages. The impact, especially the timing, on the tenants is real, notwithstanding the determination here. The comingling of home and business appears to have amplified the impact on the tenants.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the notice to terminate was a breach by the landlord.
The tenant application is dismissed. 1 removed on 30 January 2025, by section 26(1) of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 (2024 No 52). Landlord claims
The landlord claims the tenants did not 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.
The tenants did not leave all of the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Several areas required further cleaning.
The landlord provided an invoice of $305.00 and photographs in support of the claim for compensation.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. 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. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied there was a need for further cleaning but given the overall circumstances I consider a part-compensation of $200.00 compensates for cleaning to a reasonable standard.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [landlord] has substantially succeeded with its claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5044581 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5044581 — Cleanliness

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