What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5117888?

The tribunal order states: Gagandeep Sahota and Manpreet Kaur Khokhar to pay Reforma P.M. Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5117888?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $194.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $207.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117888?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11589938-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5117888?

The tribunal order states: Gagandeep Sahota and Manpreet Kaur Khokhar to pay Reforma P.M. Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5117888?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $194.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $207.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117888?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11589938-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 2 Ruby Street, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5117888 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117888 — net $429.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 November 2024	$194.29	Rent arrears to 23 November 2024
Water rates	$207.76	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$429.05
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$429.05

Order

Gagandeep Sahota and Manpreet Kaur Khokhar to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Miao, Zhuo & Lu, Yin $429.05 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (3069495-031) immediately apportioned as follows: Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Miao, Zhuo & Lu, Yin: $429.05 Gagandeep Sahota and Manpreet Kaur Khokhar: $1,650.95

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.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. RENT & WATER RATES
The tenancy ended on 23 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Rent arrears were $194.29 and outstanding water rates were $207.76.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears and outstanding water rates are granted in full for these amounts. CLEANING & PEST CONTROL The law
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 (RTA).
“Reasonably” clean and tidy means cleaned to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 1 It does not mean commercially clean, 2 spotless 3 or to a hotel or motel standard. 4 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 5 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord highlights the following matters: a. The glass door on the oven was not cleaned; b. The rangehood had grease on it; c. The hob had marks on it; d. The kitchen cupboards had dust inside; e. The skirting had not been cleaned; and f. Mould and mildew around the window sills had not been cleaned.
The landlord claims that the state of the property attracted pests, namely cockroaches. The landlord gave evidence that there were a couple of cockroaches present at the exit inspection and submitted a photograph of one cockroach on the kitchen counter.
The landlord seeks compensation of $460.00 for cleaning and $180.00 for pest control. The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts.
The tenant denies that they left the premises unreasonably clean and tidy. The tenant accepts that they forgot to clean the rangehood and glass door on the oven, but otherwise claims that they cleaned the property to a reasonable standard. The tenant gave evidence that they asked the landlord for an opportunity to return to the property to clean the glass door on the oven and rangehood, but the landlord did not permit this.
The tenant denies that the state of the property attracted cockroaches. The tenant claims if there were cockroaches present in the property, they most likely entered through a hole in the floor in one of the bedrooms. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 4 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Analysis
On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord, I find that the tenant left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The premises appears to have been vacuumed, mopped and the bench surfaces have been wiped down. I accept that the oven glass door had some remaining residue and that the rangehood and kitchen cupboards needed a wipe, but I do not consider that these deficiencies rendered the state of the premises unreasonably clean and tidy.
The property is a brick unit, and the rent was $520.00 per week. Whilst the premises appear to have undergone a renovation at some point in time, they are hardly new. When I stand back and consider the photographs of the property as a whole, I find the premises are reasonably clean and tidy having regard to these factors.
The invoice submitted by the landlord reflects a deep clean of the property. It refers to cleaning of the ceilings, sanitising the bathroom, servicing aircon unit filters etc. A tenant is not required to leave the premises in a pristine and immaculate condition, only a reasonably clean and tidy one, which I find this tenant did.
As the landlord has failed to prove that the tenant left the premises in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition, their claim for compensation for pest control must also fail. This is because the landlord is unable to attribute the presence of pests to any breach conduct by the tenant. In other words, the landlord has not proven a causal nexus between the tenant’s conduct and the presence of pests.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning and pest control is dismissed.

FILING FEE

Because Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Miao, Zhuo & Lu, Yin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117888 — net $429.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 November 2024	$194.29	Rent arrears to 23 November 2024
Water rates	$207.76	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$429.05
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$429.05

Order

Gagandeep Sahota and Manpreet Kaur Khokhar to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Miao, Zhuo & Lu, Yin $429.05 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (3069495-031) immediately apportioned as follows: Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Miao, Zhuo & Lu, Yin: $429.05 Gagandeep Sahota and Manpreet Kaur Khokhar: $1,650.95

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.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. RENT & WATER RATES
The tenancy ended on 23 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Rent arrears were $194.29 and outstanding water rates were $207.76.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears and outstanding water rates are granted in full for these amounts. CLEANING & PEST CONTROL The law
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 (RTA).
“Reasonably” clean and tidy means cleaned to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 1 It does not mean commercially clean, 2 spotless 3 or to a hotel or motel standard. 4 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 5 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord highlights the following matters: a. The glass door on the oven was not cleaned; b. The rangehood had grease on it; c. The hob had marks on it; d. The kitchen cupboards had dust inside; e. The skirting had not been cleaned; and f. Mould and mildew around the window sills had not been cleaned.
The landlord claims that the state of the property attracted pests, namely cockroaches. The landlord gave evidence that there were a couple of cockroaches present at the exit inspection and submitted a photograph of one cockroach on the kitchen counter.
The landlord seeks compensation of $460.00 for cleaning and $180.00 for pest control. The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts.
The tenant denies that they left the premises unreasonably clean and tidy. The tenant accepts that they forgot to clean the rangehood and glass door on the oven, but otherwise claims that they cleaned the property to a reasonable standard. The tenant gave evidence that they asked the landlord for an opportunity to return to the property to clean the glass door on the oven and rangehood, but the landlord did not permit this.
The tenant denies that the state of the property attracted cockroaches. The tenant claims if there were cockroaches present in the property, they most likely entered through a hole in the floor in one of the bedrooms. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 4 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Analysis
On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord, I find that the tenant left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The premises appears to have been vacuumed, mopped and the bench surfaces have been wiped down. I accept that the oven glass door had some remaining residue and that the rangehood and kitchen cupboards needed a wipe, but I do not consider that these deficiencies rendered the state of the premises unreasonably clean and tidy.
The property is a brick unit, and the rent was $520.00 per week. Whilst the premises appear to have undergone a renovation at some point in time, they are hardly new. When I stand back and consider the photographs of the property as a whole, I find the premises are reasonably clean and tidy having regard to these factors.
The invoice submitted by the landlord reflects a deep clean of the property. It refers to cleaning of the ceilings, sanitising the bathroom, servicing aircon unit filters etc. A tenant is not required to leave the premises in a pristine and immaculate condition, only a reasonably clean and tidy one, which I find this tenant did.
As the landlord has failed to prove that the tenant left the premises in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition, their claim for compensation for pest control must also fail. This is because the landlord is unable to attribute the presence of pests to any breach conduct by the tenant. In other words, the landlord has not proven a causal nexus between the tenant’s conduct and the presence of pests.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning and pest control is dismissed.

FILING FEE

Because Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Miao, Zhuo & Lu, Yin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117888 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 2 Ruby Street, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117888 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 2 Ruby Street, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions