What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5175195 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5175195?

Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $118.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175195?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11692588-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5175195 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5175195?

Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $118.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175195?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11692588-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

88A Aro Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5175195 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5175195 — net $705.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal and dump fee	$118.00	Rubbish removal and dump fee
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$705.00
Bond	$1,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$705.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord names and identifying details.
Salome Bhanu and Paul Chance Te Reapii Marsters to pay [The landlord/s] $705.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $705.00 Salome Bhanu and Paul Chance Te Reapii Marsters: $855.00

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.
Ms Bhanu filed a cross application, which was essentially a claim for the bond. Ms Bahnu asked me to consider new claims during the hearing. I would not do this because of the requirement to disclose the full particulars of the claim to the landlord. See section 91 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I note there is a dispute between the tenants about who paid rent and who is responsible for cleaning. I have advised them that the bond should be used to reimburse the landlord. The jurisdiction of the RTA only allows me to consider claims between landlords and tenants.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 February 2025. The landlord has claimed rent arrears because Ms Bhanu did not pay rent for the last two weeks. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. Ms Bhanu said she did not pay the rent because she was two weeks in advance throughout the tenancy. The landlord only provided rent records from the last few months of the tenancy which means they cannot prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The claim for rent arrears is dismissed.
The landlord asked why they were not advised before the hearing that the rent summary was insufficient to prove the claim. I note this from the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: [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 or 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.

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

There is a claim for cleaning and rubbish removal. Tenants must return the tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
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.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have been provided with photos they say were taken on 11 February 2025, after the tenants moved out. I have been provided with two invoices, one for rubbish removal and one for cleaning. I have also been provided with an email sent on 14 February 2025 from the cleaning business which states: This property ... was in a very bad state of cleanliness showing a lack of cleaning over an extended period of time. Every room in the property was very dirty and dusty. In particular, all lino was very sticky and dirty, the shower had mould growing and lots of stains to remove. All kitchen cupboards and drawers were very dirty. All skirting boards and window sills were dirty and dust ... All the whiteware was filthy...
Ms Bhanu submitted that the photos the landlord said were taken on 11 February were in fact taken on 3 February 2025, before she cleaned. She said she left the house reasonably clean and tidy. Ms Bhanu did not take any photos during or after cleaning.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. They have provided data from the phone showing the photos were taken on 11 February and their photographic evidence is supported by the cleaner’s email. The claims for cleaning and rubbish removal are proved.
I allow the claim for rubbish removal in full. I have allowed an amount for cleaning that sees reasonable to me based on the evidence provided. Other orders
Because the landlord is the most successful party I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants have to pay money from the bond. See section 95A RTA.
A request for the bond refund has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5175195 — net $705.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal and dump fee	$118.00	Rubbish removal and dump fee
Cleaning	$560.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$705.00
Bond	$1,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$705.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord names and identifying details.
Salome Bhanu and Paul Chance Te Reapii Marsters to pay [The landlord/s] $705.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $705.00 Salome Bhanu and Paul Chance Te Reapii Marsters: $855.00

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.
Ms Bhanu filed a cross application, which was essentially a claim for the bond. Ms Bahnu asked me to consider new claims during the hearing. I would not do this because of the requirement to disclose the full particulars of the claim to the landlord. See section 91 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I note there is a dispute between the tenants about who paid rent and who is responsible for cleaning. I have advised them that the bond should be used to reimburse the landlord. The jurisdiction of the RTA only allows me to consider claims between landlords and tenants.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 February 2025. The landlord has claimed rent arrears because Ms Bhanu did not pay rent for the last two weeks. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. Ms Bhanu said she did not pay the rent because she was two weeks in advance throughout the tenancy. The landlord only provided rent records from the last few months of the tenancy which means they cannot prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The claim for rent arrears is dismissed.
The landlord asked why they were not advised before the hearing that the rent summary was insufficient to prove the claim. I note this from the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: [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 or 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.

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

There is a claim for cleaning and rubbish removal. Tenants must return the tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
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.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have been provided with photos they say were taken on 11 February 2025, after the tenants moved out. I have been provided with two invoices, one for rubbish removal and one for cleaning. I have also been provided with an email sent on 14 February 2025 from the cleaning business which states: This property ... was in a very bad state of cleanliness showing a lack of cleaning over an extended period of time. Every room in the property was very dirty and dusty. In particular, all lino was very sticky and dirty, the shower had mould growing and lots of stains to remove. All kitchen cupboards and drawers were very dirty. All skirting boards and window sills were dirty and dust ... All the whiteware was filthy...
Ms Bhanu submitted that the photos the landlord said were taken on 11 February were in fact taken on 3 February 2025, before she cleaned. She said she left the house reasonably clean and tidy. Ms Bhanu did not take any photos during or after cleaning.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. They have provided data from the phone showing the photos were taken on 11 February and their photographic evidence is supported by the cleaner’s email. The claims for cleaning and rubbish removal are proved.
I allow the claim for rubbish removal in full. I have allowed an amount for cleaning that sees reasonable to me based on the evidence provided. Other orders
Because the landlord is the most successful party I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants have to pay money from the bond. See section 95A RTA.
A request for the bond refund has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175195 — Cleanliness at 88A Aro Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175195 — Cleanliness at 88A Aro Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenants 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions