What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5178791?

The tribunal order states: Marco Pessina to pay Rentex Limited Acting Agent For Minghong Wu $100.00

How much money was awarded in case 5178791?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5178791?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5178791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11930387-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5178791?

The tribunal order states: Marco Pessina to pay Rentex Limited Acting Agent For Minghong Wu $100.00

How much money was awarded in case 5178791?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5178791?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5178791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11930387-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Arosa Place, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5178791 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5178791 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$100.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Net award	$100.00
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Marco Pessina to pay Rentex Limited Acting Agent For Minghong Wu $100.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (3512942-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentex Limited Acting Agent For Minghong Wu: $100.00 Marco Pessina: $2,620.00

Reasons

This is a cross application. Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The landlord was represented by Mr Lin.

The landlord has applied for $517.50 compensation for cleaning costs, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for the full refund of his bond.

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, 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.

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord produced an invoice for cleaning for $517.50, and photographs of the property pre tenancy and post tenancy.

The tenant also produced photographs of the property pre tenancy and post tenancy.

The landlord’s photographs from the start of the tenancy show the premises to be very clean, particularly the skirting boards and windowsills.

The landlord’s end of tenancy photographs show some dust on skirting boards and windowsills, dust in some kitchen cubby holes, an oven that had not been cleaned and some other areas that are not perfectly clean and tidy.

The tenant’s photographs from the start of the tenancy show areas of the premises which are clearly not reasonably clean and tidy. These include the cupboard in the basement which is very dirty, the bathroom ceiling which has significant mould showing, rubbish bins which have rubbish in them, the kitchen splash-back which is discoloured, piles of leaves gathered on the deck and rubbish in the basement.

The tenant’s photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show these areas as mostly significantly cleaner than at the beginning of the tenancy, not least of which because the tenant painted and renovated many of them.

The tenant is not making any claim for compensation for the work he did, and the landlord made the point that the work the tenant voluntarily undertook to improve the premises, should not excuse him from his obligation at the end of the tenancy to return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The tenant stated that he spent a full day cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy, although he accepts he did not clean the oven and he accepts he missed some other areas.

A tenant’s obligation is to return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. They do not have to be perfectly clean and tidy, nor nearly perfectly clean and tidy. A responsible landlord will often choose to undertake a deep clean between tenancies.

What is reasonable with regard to clean and tidy, is somewhat open to interpretation.

The landlord stated that in his opinion at the beginning of the tenancy the premises were presented in reasonably clean and tidy condition. This notwithstanding the mould in the bathroom, the condition of the kitchen splashback, the dirty basement and all the other points raised by the tenant and noted above in paragraph 9.

Some people might disagree with the landlord about this.

When I look at the photographs and hear the information from both parties, I consider the condition in which the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy to be more or less on a par with how they were presented at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord and tenant in their photographs have focussed their attention on areas that suit their respective arguments. The dust, dirt and spiderwebs are in different places at the end of the tenancy from at the beginning, but overall the premises are in reasonably clean and tidy condition on both occasions.

I certainly do not consider it would be reasonable to hold the tenant to a higher standard of reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, to which the landlord presented the property in, at the beginning of the tenancy.

The one exception to this is the oven, which in my opinion should have been cleaned at the end of the tenancy. I make an award for this.

The amount ordered is proved.

Because each party has been somewhat successful with their application, the filing fee costs can lie where they fall.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5178791 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$100.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Net award	$100.00
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

Marco Pessina to pay Rentex Limited Acting Agent For Minghong Wu $100.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (3512942-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Rentex Limited Acting Agent For Minghong Wu: $100.00 Marco Pessina: $2,620.00

Reasons

This is a cross application. Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The landlord was represented by Mr Lin.
The landlord has applied for $517.50 compensation for cleaning costs, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the full refund of his bond.

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, 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.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord produced an invoice for cleaning for $517.50, and photographs of the property pre tenancy and post tenancy.
The tenant also produced photographs of the property pre tenancy and post tenancy.
The landlord’s photographs from the start of the tenancy show the premises to be very clean, particularly the skirting boards and windowsills.
The landlord’s end of tenancy photographs show some dust on skirting boards and windowsills, dust in some kitchen cubby holes, an oven that had not been cleaned and some other areas that are not perfectly clean and tidy.
The tenant’s photographs from the start of the tenancy show areas of the premises which are clearly not reasonably clean and tidy. These include the cupboard in the basement which is very dirty, the bathroom ceiling which has significant mould showing, rubbish bins which have rubbish in them, the kitchen splash-back which is discoloured, piles of leaves gathered on the deck and rubbish in the basement.
The tenant’s photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show these areas as mostly significantly cleaner than at the beginning of the tenancy, not least of which because the tenant painted and renovated many of them.
The tenant is not making any claim for compensation for the work he did, and the landlord made the point that the work the tenant voluntarily undertook to improve the premises, should not excuse him from his obligation at the end of the tenancy to return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The tenant stated that he spent a full day cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy, although he accepts he did not clean the oven and he accepts he missed some other areas.
A tenant’s obligation is to return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. They do not have to be perfectly clean and tidy, nor nearly perfectly clean and tidy. A responsible landlord will often choose to undertake a deep clean between tenancies.
What is reasonable with regard to clean and tidy, is somewhat open to interpretation.
The landlord stated that in his opinion at the beginning of the tenancy the premises were presented in reasonably clean and tidy condition. This notwithstanding the mould in the bathroom, the condition of the kitchen splashback, the dirty basement and all the other points raised by the tenant and noted above in paragraph 9.
Some people might disagree with the landlord about this.
When I look at the photographs and hear the information from both parties, I consider the condition in which the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy to be more or less on a par with how they were presented at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord and tenant in their photographs have focussed their attention on areas that suit their respective arguments. The dust, dirt and spiderwebs are in different places at the end of the tenancy from at the beginning, but overall the premises are in reasonably clean and tidy condition on both occasions.
I certainly do not consider it would be reasonable to hold the tenant to a higher standard of reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, to which the landlord presented the property in, at the beginning of the tenancy.
The one exception to this is the oven, which in my opinion should have been cleaned at the end of the tenancy. I make an award for this.
The amount ordered is proved.
Because each party has been somewhat successful with their application, the filing fee costs can lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5178791 — Cleanliness at 19 Arosa Place, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5178791 — Cleanliness at 19 Arosa Place, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions