How much money was awarded in case 5140428?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5140428?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5140428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5140428?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5140428?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5140428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5140428 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5140428 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5140428 — net $453.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$400.00		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$80.00		Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$480.00	$27.00
Net award	$453.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$453.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Riaz Hussein $453.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Riaz Hussein: $453.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,747.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.

The tenant has applied for release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has applied for rent compensation following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).

Both parties provided photos of the premises. The photos included some which were taken at the commencement of the tenancy and also photos taken at the conclusion of the tenancy. I have reviewed all of the photos. The tenants’ evidence was essentially that they did not accept that the amount of cleaning required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard equated to the costs sought by the landlord. The tenants accepted in evidence that some cleaning would have been required to the interior of the premises. This is a small 2 bedroom property at 59m2. I have reviewed the photos. I consider that a reasonable charge for the cleaning of the interior of the property to bring it to a reasonably cleaning tidy standard would be $400.00.

The landlord seeks compensation for lawns, weeding and exterior cleaning at a cost of $147.14. The tenant raised two important issues. It was sometime after the end of the tenancy that the landlord has taken photos of the lawns. The end of the tenancy occurred during the summer. I accept that the lawns would not have been as long on the day that the tenancy ended. The landlord claim includes a claim for some rubbish removal. The tenants said that some of the rubbish shown in the photos provided by the landlord was not their rubbish but had been added after they had left the tenancy by some unknown person. I accept that proposition. I consider that a reasonable sum for the tenants to pay for exterior gardening and rubbish removal is $80.00.

The amounts ordered are proven.

The tenants have been substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord is ordered to reimburse the filing fee.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenants have been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5140428 — net $453.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$400.00		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$80.00		Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$480.00	$27.00
Net award	$453.00
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$453.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Riaz Hussein $453.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Riaz Hussein: $453.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,747.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenant has applied for release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent compensation following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Both parties provided photos of the premises. The photos included some which were taken at the commencement of the tenancy and also photos taken at the conclusion of the tenancy. I have reviewed all of the photos. The tenants’ evidence was essentially that they did not accept that the amount of cleaning required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard equated to the costs sought by the landlord. The tenants accepted in evidence that some cleaning would have been required to the interior of the premises. This is a small 2 bedroom property at 59m2. I have reviewed the photos. I consider that a reasonable charge for the cleaning of the interior of the property to bring it to a reasonably cleaning tidy standard would be $400.00.
The landlord seeks compensation for lawns, weeding and exterior cleaning at a cost of $147.14. The tenant raised two important issues. It was sometime after the end of the tenancy that the landlord has taken photos of the lawns. The end of the tenancy occurred during the summer. I accept that the lawns would not have been as long on the day that the tenancy ended. The landlord claim includes a claim for some rubbish removal. The tenants said that some of the rubbish shown in the photos provided by the landlord was not their rubbish but had been added after they had left the tenancy by some unknown person. I accept that proposition. I consider that a reasonable sum for the tenants to pay for exterior gardening and rubbish removal is $80.00.
The amounts ordered are proven.
The tenants have been substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord is ordered to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenants have been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5140428 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5140428 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions