What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5091493 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 immediately apportioned as

How much money was awarded in case 5091493?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091493?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091493?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11560367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5091493 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 immediately apportioned as

How much money was awarded in case 5091493?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091493?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091493?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11560367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5091493 — Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $0.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,680.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy has come to an end. The Tenant wants to recover the full bond. The Landlord wants $240 for the cost of cleaning the premises.
The Landlord says that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Relying on an “Outgoing Condition Report” dated 13 November 2024, it says that: a. Kitchen cupboards were smudged and dirty. b. The underside of a kitchen tap was dirty. c. The oven and oven door required cleaning. d. A kitchen window sill was sticky. e. The kitchen exhaust fan was contaminated with fat and dirty. f. A shower tap was broken. g. A bathroom window screen was dirty. h. The gardens required weeding.
The Landlord therefore seeks to recover $240, which it says was the cost of hiring cleaners – Patel & Sons Ltd – to return the premises to a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
The Tenant says that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Assessment
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the Landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
The onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the Landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning, it is the Landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the Landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
In submitting that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, the Landlord relied heavily on the Outgoing Condition Report. The overall tenor of the Outgoing Condition Report is that the premises were in a clean and tidy state. For example, at page 2 the Report states “The tenant has left the property in good condition, but it requires light cleaning inside and some weeding needed at the garden beds”. Despite this statement that the premises were left in good condition, the Report writer goes on to say “we will arrange for a cleaner, and the cost will be deducted from the tenant’s bond”.
The Report then goes on the consider the condition of various areas of the premises, with the Report Writer noting each area with a green “Y” if that area is in good condition or a red “N” if it is not. The various areas of the premises are predominantly marked green – i.e. in good condition.
Parts of the premises, including those listed in paragraph 3 of this decision, were marked as red – i.e. requiring further cleaning. I have seen photographs of those areas provided by the Landlord. I agree that those photographs show that those areas were not in immaculate condition.
However, a landlord can usually expect to perform some cleaning if they want to return the premises to a high state of cleanliness. In this case, the extent of the cleaning required was described in the Outgoing Condition Report as being “light cleaning”. That appears to be a correct assessment to me, and I am not satisfied that the Landlord has proven that areas set out in paragraph 3 were so dirty or unclean that the premises were not reasonably clean or reasonably tidy. The Landlord’s claim to recover the cost of cleaning the interior of the premises is dismissed.
The Landlord is entitled to recover the cost of weeding the garden. The photographs provided show that the garden was overgrown with weeds and the Tenant had an obligation under the Tenancy Agreement to keep the garden free of weeds. The Landlord’s representative advised that the weeding took one hour, at a cost of $60 per hour. I award that cost to the Landlord. Suppression and filing fee
Both parties had have some success, so I order suppression of name and identifying details for both. I make no order for the refund of filing fees, as each party has been at least partly successful in their claims.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $0.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,680.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy has come to an end. The Tenant wants to recover the full bond. The Landlord wants $240 for the cost of cleaning the premises.
The Landlord says that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Relying on an “Outgoing Condition Report” dated 13 November 2024, it says that: a. Kitchen cupboards were smudged and dirty. b. The underside of a kitchen tap was dirty. c. The oven and oven door required cleaning. d. A kitchen window sill was sticky. e. The kitchen exhaust fan was contaminated with fat and dirty. f. A shower tap was broken. g. A bathroom window screen was dirty. h. The gardens required weeding.
The Landlord therefore seeks to recover $240, which it says was the cost of hiring cleaners – Patel & Sons Ltd – to return the premises to a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
The Tenant says that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. Assessment
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the Landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
The onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the Landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning, it is the Landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the Landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
In submitting that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, the Landlord relied heavily on the Outgoing Condition Report. The overall tenor of the Outgoing Condition Report is that the premises were in a clean and tidy state. For example, at page 2 the Report states “The tenant has left the property in good condition, but it requires light cleaning inside and some weeding needed at the garden beds”. Despite this statement that the premises were left in good condition, the Report writer goes on to say “we will arrange for a cleaner, and the cost will be deducted from the tenant’s bond”.
The Report then goes on the consider the condition of various areas of the premises, with the Report Writer noting each area with a green “Y” if that area is in good condition or a red “N” if it is not. The various areas of the premises are predominantly marked green – i.e. in good condition.
Parts of the premises, including those listed in paragraph 3 of this decision, were marked as red – i.e. requiring further cleaning. I have seen photographs of those areas provided by the Landlord. I agree that those photographs show that those areas were not in immaculate condition.
However, a landlord can usually expect to perform some cleaning if they want to return the premises to a high state of cleanliness. In this case, the extent of the cleaning required was described in the Outgoing Condition Report as being “light cleaning”. That appears to be a correct assessment to me, and I am not satisfied that the Landlord has proven that areas set out in paragraph 3 were so dirty or unclean that the premises were not reasonably clean or reasonably tidy. The Landlord’s claim to recover the cost of cleaning the interior of the premises is dismissed.
The Landlord is entitled to recover the cost of weeding the garden. The photographs provided show that the garden was overgrown with weeds and the Tenant had an obligation under the Tenancy Agreement to keep the garden free of weeds. The Landlord’s representative advised that the weeding took one hour, at a cost of $60 per hour. I award that cost to the Landlord. Suppression and filing fee
Both parties had have some success, so I order suppression of name and identifying details for both. I make no order for the refund of filing fees, as each party has been at least partly successful in their claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091493 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091493 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions