Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5098789 — Rent arrears
Decided 24 Apr 2025 · Published 24 Apr 2025 · Application 5098789
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ name and identifying details.
- The Landlord is entitled to receive $2,522.27 and the Tenants are entitled to receive $3,077.73 from the Bond, as set out in the table below. The Bond Centre is to release those amounts to the Landlord and Tenants.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent and water rates
- The tenancy ended on 6 November 2024. The Landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy was $2,000 for rent and $345.27 for water rates. The Tenants agree that they owe those amounts to the Landlord. The Landlord is entitled to recover those amounts and I order accordingly. Cleaning costs
- The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) requires 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 vacated premises to be in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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 and rubbish removal, it is the Landlord who must prove that the Tenants have 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.
- The Landlord says that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean or reasonably tidy condition. Most of the photographs provided by the Landlord relate to the condition of the premises on about 15 November 2024, when an initial exit inspection was performed. The Landlord then agreed to allow the Tenants a further opportunity to clean the premises. The Tenants then engaged cleaners, who performed further cleaning on 18 and 19 November 2024.
- The Landlord has provided photographs taken on 20 November 2024 – after the tenant’s cleaners had performed further cleaning. Those photographs show that parts of the premises were not in pristine condition, but generally the premises looked to be in a satisfactory condition, other than a few small areas that required further cleaning to bring them to the required standard.
- For example, the Landlord produced photographs that appears to show remnants of a cleaning product on kitchen cupboard door, a cupboard drawer and the rangehood. Those remnants would have been easily removed with a damp cloth. I am not satisfied that the Tenants should be liable for such minor work.
- There were small areas of the premises that were not reasonably clean or reasonably tidy. The Landlord provided a photograph of a dirty shower head and the unclean condition of the inside and behind a few drawers and the condition of a set of drawer sliders. I find that the Landlord is entitled to recover a proportion on the cleaning cost to reflect the time spent cleaning those areas. I fix that amount at $50.
- The Landlord also seeks to recover the cost of removing rubbish that it says was left behind by the Tenants, and the Landlord provided a photograph of rubbish that it paid its cleaners to remove. That pile of rubbish clearly includes items that were in the premises at the start of the tenancy (including a clothes drying rack and clothes hangers that are shown in the Entry Inspection Report photographs). The Tenants say that the remaining items, which largely appears to be small boxes and plastic bags, were also present when they moved in.
- In that regard, I note that the Entry Inspection Report photographs, largely from the garage area, also show that items like boxes were in the premises at the start of the tenancy. However, I am satisfied that at least some of the rubbish (particularly the plastic bags, shoe boxes and clothing items) were left by the Tenants. Given the small amount of the Tenant’s rubbish that required disposal – which could have fit into a council recycling and rubbish bin, I find that the Landlord is entitled to recover $50 for the cost it incurred. Damage to the carpet, dishwasher panel, solar light and gate The main gate and solar lights
- The Landlord alleges that the main gate and a solar light were damaged on or about 18 November 2024, when the Tenants’ cleaners entered the premises. The Tenants deny this damage.
- Under section 49A of the RTA, there is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. However, under section 49B, a tenant can be liable where that damage was intentional or careless.
- The photographs provided by the Landlords show that a solar light attached to a boundary fence was damaged, in that it had been knocked out of its bracket. Given the nature of the damage, which was most likely caused by force being exerted on the light fitting, I am satisfied that the damage was at least careless and that it was caused during the tenancy. In that regard, I note that the photographs in the Entry Inspection Report show that the light was intact at the start of the tenancy.
- Whether or not that was caused by the Tenants, or the cleaners does not matter, as the Tenants are liable for their careless actions and the careless acts of those on the premises with their permission.
- The Landlord has provided an invoice from Reflective Home Renovations dated 9 December 2024. That invoice does not itemise the actual cost of the solar light repair as it also includes the cost of fixing a broken dishwasher panel. However, given the apparently straightforward nature of the repair, I award $50 compensation to the Landlord to reflect the reasonable repair cost.
- Regarding the main gate, the Landlord has produced an invoice dated 9 December 2024 from CJ Gates Ltd, which states that the gate and side fence panel were repaired at a cost of $281.75. I accept that invoice as evidence that the gate required repair. However, the Landlord has not proven when the gate was damaged, how the gate was damaged or whether the Tenants should be responsible.
- The Landlord says that the damage was caused by the cleaners or Tenants climbing over the fence, which would amount to a careless act if that is what occurred. The Tenants say that this did not occur. They say that the cleaners gained access by pressing a button beside the gate which, when pushed, opens the gate. The Tenants say that they used this method to access the premises at the start of the tenancy because the property manager did not provide them with the remote access key until sometime after the beginning of the property.
- The damage may have been caused by the cleaners climbing the gate, or it may not have been. On this point the evidence is unclear, and because the Landlord bears the onus of proving its claims on the balance of probability, I find that it has not proven that the damage was caused by an intentional or careless act of the Tenants or any person on the premises with their consent.
- I also note that the nature of the damage to the gate, and precisely when that damage occurred, also remains unclear. In an email dated 21 November 2024, the Landlord’s property manager alleges that the “main rolling gate is damaged, as its roller is bent, causing the gate to be bent when opening or closing”. The Landlord provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which clearly show that a roller is bent. However, the photographs in the Entry Inspection Report also show that the roller was bent at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, if the damage to the gate was due to a bent roller, as alleged by the property manager in her email on 21 November 2024, that damage pre-dated this tenancy.
- Finally, the Landlord also alleges that the Tenants acted unlawfully by allowing the cleaners to enter the premises without first collecting the keys from the Landlord. The evidence shows that the Landlords had agreed to allow access to the cleaners on 18 and 19 November, so I am not satisfied that there was anything unlawful about the cleaners being at the property on those two days. Further, in the absence of evidence as to exactly how the cleaners entered the premises and considering the Tenants’ evidence that they did so by pushing a button which opened a gate, I do not feel able to conclude that they did so unlawfully. The dishwasher panel
- The Landlord seeks to recover the cost of repairing a damaged panel at the bottom of the dishwasher. The Landlord has proven that the panel is damaged but has not shown that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
- The best evidence as to the condition of the dishwasher at the start of the tenancy are the photographs in the Entry Inspection Report. Those photographs are inconclusive and, if anything, show that the panel was already misaligned and potentially damaged at that time. I therefore find that the Landlord has not proven that the dishwasher panel was damaged during the tenancy. The stained carpet
- The Landlord has provided photographs to show pink stains on the carpet in the walk-in wardrobe in the downstairs bedroom. The Tenants deny causing the stain and say it was there when they moved in.
- Again, it is the Landlord who must prove its claim, on the balance of probabilities. The evidence of the condition of that area of carpet at the start of the tenancy is inconclusive. The only evidence is photographs in the Entry Inspection Report, which are not clear enough to show whether the carpet was stained or not in the affected areas at the start of the tenancy. I therefore find that the Landlord has not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the stain occurred during the tenancy.
- I also provided the Landlord with an opportunity to provide evidence after the hearing to prove that it had made an insurance claim to replace the carpet and paid the $1,000 excess. The evidence provided by the Landlord shows that it lodged a claim with the insurance company and that its insurance excess was $1,000. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that the carpet was actually replaced or that the excess was paid. The Landlord’s claim to recover the $1,000 insurance excess it claims to have paid to replace the carpet is therefore dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
- Because it has been significantly successful in its claim, the Landlord is entitled to recover the filing fee of $27. I also order suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties under s 95A(1) of the RTA, on the grounds that both parties have had a degree of success.