What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5083270 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 5083270?

Cleaning: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,702.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $141.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5083270?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5083270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11529030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5083270 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 5083270?

Cleaning: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,702.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $141.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5083270?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5083270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11529030-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Street address] , Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5083270 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

[Street address] , Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5083270 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5083270 — net $2,034.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 December 2024	$1,702.86	Rent arrears to 8 December 2024
Water rates	$141.88	Water rates
Cleaning invoice	$189.75	Cleaning invoice
Net award	$2,034.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,034.49

Claims and awards for application 5083270 — net $2,034.49 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 8 December 2024

Amount: $1,702.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 8 December 2024

Water rates

Amount: $141.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning invoice

Amount: $189.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning invoice

Net award

Landlord $2,034.49

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,034.49

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — Filing fee

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Rent arrears Water Rates Filing Fee

Order

The landlords’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
The Tribunal allows the landlords’ cleaning claim; and dismisses all other claims.
Leigh Richard Hannah must pay [the landlords] $2,034.49 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Tribunal directs the Bond Centre to immediately pay the bond of $5,960.00 apportioned as follows: [The landlords]: $2,034.49 Leigh Richard Hannah: $3,925.51

Reasons

The landlords who are father and son attended the hearing in person.
The tenant attended by telephone from the United Kingdom.
The landlords seek compensation, payment out of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims for return of his bond.
In summary, the landlords claim, the tenant is liable for: a. The cost of cleaning. b. Damage to roman blinds. c. Five days’ rent due to not being able to rent the premises out.
The tenant disputes the landlord’s claims.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of cleaning after the end of the tenancy?

The landlords claim that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
The tenant had professional cleaners clean the premises. However, the landlords complain that the cleaners did not clean the oven, clean what appear to be fly spots from the kitchen ceiling, or attend to various other minor cleanliness issues.
The landlords got the tenant’s cleaners back to finish the cleaning. The cleaners agreed with the landlords to complete the cleaning and to charge only for cleaning the oven and kitchen ceiling, with the other minor cleaning work being done free of charge. Legal principles
The landlord must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 1
Similarly, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 2 1 RTA, s 45(1)(a). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(iii).
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard of an average disinterested 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.
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 landlords’ photographs prove the oven was unclean and there were fly spots on the kitchen ceiling at the end of the tenancy.
The landlords also provided photographs proving that the oven was clean prior to the tenancy. The photograph of the kitchen ceiling prior to the tenancy beginning was inconclusive because the photograph was taken from a mid- distance. Mr [landlords’ surname] (senior) explained that the kitchen ceiling was pristine prior to the tenancy beginning because the premises including the kitchen ceiling had been cleaned to a high standard for the purposes of sale prior to this tenancy beginning. Therefore, it is probable that the kitchen ceiling was reasonably clean prior to the tenancy beginning, and the fly spot occurred during the tenancy which lasted about one-and-a-half years.
The oven was not left reasonably clean.
The fly spots were relatively minor. It is understandable that the tenant (and his cleaners) would not have even noticed them. Nonetheless, in this case the house is a good quality, well-presented home. I find the ceiling required cleaning for the premises to be regarded as being returned reasonably clean. I accept that the premises was prepared for sale at some point prior to this tenancy. However, it was not established exactly when that occurred. Given the pre-tenancy photograph is not decisive, I allow only 50 per cent of the ceiling 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. cleaning cost because I am not satisfied that the ceiling was free of fly spots prior to the tenancy’s commencement. Conclusion
It follows, I find the tenant liable for the cost of the additional cleaning at the premises for the oven, and for 50 per cent of the cost of cleaning the ceiling.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the roman blinds?

The landlords claim the tenant is liable for damage to the premises’ roman blinds. The blinds are quite old, perhaps about 15-years-old. However, the landlords have maintained them and had them restrung in 2020 when they attempted to sell the premises.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the curtains was more than fair wear and tear.
Curtains and blinds are expected to have a useful life of about eight years. These blinds were at least that age. Blinds like these do naturally degrade with use over time.
One of the blind’s wooden inserts had broken and was poking out through the fabric. The landlords submitted that the damage must have been caused intentionally. I consider it is improbable that the damage occurred intentionally. There was no other alleged intentional damage at the premises. That indicates the tenant, and his family took care of the premises and were not violent towards it. Moreover, although the cause of the damage is a mystery, the damage shown in the picture could equally have been caused by fair wear and tear. Given the surrounding circumstances, it is more probable than not that this damage was not intentional or careless but was due to fair wear and tear.
The landlords have not proven that the damage to the blinds was more than fair wear and tear.
This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable for rent for the premises being untenantable?

The landlords claimed five days rent for the tenant not maintaining the garden and the tenant leaving some belongings in the premises.
Sometimes the Tribunal entertains loss of rent claims where, for example, the tenant has caused major damage to the premises or contaminated the premises rendering them uninhabitable until the landlord can carry out significant remedial work . This is not such a case.
These issues here were de minimis. Landlords commonly have to carry out tasks such as additional cleaning and garden maintenance from tenancy to tenancy. The matters the landlords raise as preventing a new tenancy are typical and minor and should not have delayed them finding new tenants.
I note in passing, tenants do not have an obligation to “maintain” the garden. Maintenance is a landlord obligation that cannot be shifted to the tenant without the Tribunal’s permission. 4 Tenants have an obligation to keep the garden tidy, but it is debatable whether that duty would extend to trimming shrubs and feeding trees, for example.
In any event, the landlord could have proceeded to rent the premises out even though the garden needed some work.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
No order is made for the filing fee as both parties have had a degree of success in their applications. Non-publication
The landlords seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 5 4 RTA, s 45(1)(b) and s 11. 5 RTA, s 95A(1).
The landlords have had some success in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the landlords’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
It follows, the Tribunal grants the landlords’ request for non-publication. Other
For the parties’ convenience, the Tribunal orders agreed rent and water arrears to be paid from the bond.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5083270 — net $2,034.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 December 2024	$1,702.86	Rent arrears to 8 December 2024
Water rates	$141.88	Water rates
Cleaning invoice	$189.75	Cleaning invoice
Net award	$2,034.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,034.49

Claims and awards for application 5083270 — net $2,034.49 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 8 December 2024

Amount: $1,702.86
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 8 December 2024

Water rates

Amount: $141.88
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Cleaning invoice

Amount: $189.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning invoice

Net award

Landlord $2,034.49

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,034.49

Dismissed claims

Filing Fee — Filing fee

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Rent arrears Water Rates Filing Fee

Order

The landlords’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
The Tribunal allows the landlords’ cleaning claim; and dismisses all other claims.
Leigh Richard Hannah must pay [the landlords] $2,034.49 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Tribunal directs the Bond Centre to immediately pay the bond of $5,960.00 apportioned as follows: [The landlords]: $2,034.49 Leigh Richard Hannah: $3,925.51

Reasons

The landlords who are father and son attended the hearing in person.
The tenant attended by telephone from the United Kingdom.
The landlords seek compensation, payment out of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims for return of his bond.
In summary, the landlords claim, the tenant is liable for: a. The cost of cleaning. b. Damage to roman blinds. c. Five days’ rent due to not being able to rent the premises out.
The tenant disputes the landlord’s claims.

Is the tenant liable for the cost of cleaning after the end of the tenancy?

The landlords claim that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
The tenant had professional cleaners clean the premises. However, the landlords complain that the cleaners did not clean the oven, clean what appear to be fly spots from the kitchen ceiling, or attend to various other minor cleanliness issues.
The landlords got the tenant’s cleaners back to finish the cleaning. The cleaners agreed with the landlords to complete the cleaning and to charge only for cleaning the oven and kitchen ceiling, with the other minor cleaning work being done free of charge. Legal principles
The landlord must provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the beginning of the tenancy. 1
Similarly, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 2 1 RTA, s 45(1)(a). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(iii).
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard of an average disinterested 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.
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 landlords’ photographs prove the oven was unclean and there were fly spots on the kitchen ceiling at the end of the tenancy.
The landlords also provided photographs proving that the oven was clean prior to the tenancy. The photograph of the kitchen ceiling prior to the tenancy beginning was inconclusive because the photograph was taken from a mid- distance. Mr [landlords’ surname] (senior) explained that the kitchen ceiling was pristine prior to the tenancy beginning because the premises including the kitchen ceiling had been cleaned to a high standard for the purposes of sale prior to this tenancy beginning. Therefore, it is probable that the kitchen ceiling was reasonably clean prior to the tenancy beginning, and the fly spot occurred during the tenancy which lasted about one-and-a-half years.
The oven was not left reasonably clean.
The fly spots were relatively minor. It is understandable that the tenant (and his cleaners) would not have even noticed them. Nonetheless, in this case the house is a good quality, well-presented home. I find the ceiling required cleaning for the premises to be regarded as being returned reasonably clean. I accept that the premises was prepared for sale at some point prior to this tenancy. However, it was not established exactly when that occurred. Given the pre-tenancy photograph is not decisive, I allow only 50 per cent of the ceiling 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. cleaning cost because I am not satisfied that the ceiling was free of fly spots prior to the tenancy’s commencement. Conclusion
It follows, I find the tenant liable for the cost of the additional cleaning at the premises for the oven, and for 50 per cent of the cost of cleaning the ceiling.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the roman blinds?

The landlords claim the tenant is liable for damage to the premises’ roman blinds. The blinds are quite old, perhaps about 15-years-old. However, the landlords have maintained them and had them restrung in 2020 when they attempted to sell the premises.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the curtains was more than fair wear and tear.
Curtains and blinds are expected to have a useful life of about eight years. These blinds were at least that age. Blinds like these do naturally degrade with use over time.
One of the blind’s wooden inserts had broken and was poking out through the fabric. The landlords submitted that the damage must have been caused intentionally. I consider it is improbable that the damage occurred intentionally. There was no other alleged intentional damage at the premises. That indicates the tenant, and his family took care of the premises and were not violent towards it. Moreover, although the cause of the damage is a mystery, the damage shown in the picture could equally have been caused by fair wear and tear. Given the surrounding circumstances, it is more probable than not that this damage was not intentional or careless but was due to fair wear and tear.
The landlords have not proven that the damage to the blinds was more than fair wear and tear.
This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant liable for rent for the premises being untenantable?

The landlords claimed five days rent for the tenant not maintaining the garden and the tenant leaving some belongings in the premises.
Sometimes the Tribunal entertains loss of rent claims where, for example, the tenant has caused major damage to the premises or contaminated the premises rendering them uninhabitable until the landlord can carry out significant remedial work . This is not such a case.
These issues here were de minimis. Landlords commonly have to carry out tasks such as additional cleaning and garden maintenance from tenancy to tenancy. The matters the landlords raise as preventing a new tenancy are typical and minor and should not have delayed them finding new tenants.
I note in passing, tenants do not have an obligation to “maintain” the garden. Maintenance is a landlord obligation that cannot be shifted to the tenant without the Tribunal’s permission. 4 Tenants have an obligation to keep the garden tidy, but it is debatable whether that duty would extend to trimming shrubs and feeding trees, for example.
In any event, the landlord could have proceeded to rent the premises out even though the garden needed some work.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
No order is made for the filing fee as both parties have had a degree of success in their applications. Non-publication
The landlords seek non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 5 4 RTA, s 45(1)(b) and s 11. 5 RTA, s 95A(1).
The landlords have had some success in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the landlords’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
It follows, the Tribunal grants the landlords’ request for non-publication. Other
For the parties’ convenience, the Tribunal orders agreed rent and water arrears to be paid from the bond.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5083270 — Rent arrears at [Street address] , Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5083270 — Rent arrears at [Street address] , Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the cost of cleaning after the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the roman blinds?

Is the tenant liable for rent for the premises being untenantable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the cost of cleaning after the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the roman blinds?

Is the tenant liable for rent for the premises being untenantable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions