What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5189456?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Mungo Rich, Emin Kaya and Johnathan English to pay Ihome

How much money was awarded in case 5189456?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $112.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5189456?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5189456?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11865685-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5189456?

The tribunal order states: Jonathan Mungo Rich, Emin Kaya and Johnathan English to pay Ihome

How much money was awarded in case 5189456?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $112.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5189456?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5189456?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11865685-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

162F Barrack Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5189456 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5189456 — net $289.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (1 day	$112.85	Rent arrears (1 day
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$289.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$289.85

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants gave notice to end the tenancy on 1 March 2025 and vacated that day. The landlord claims a further day’s rent to 2 March 2025 on the grounds that the tenants returned to the premises on 2 March to finish cleaning and to remove rubbish and belongings. Therefore, the landlord argues that the tenants had not handed over possession of the premises on 1 March and they seek rent to 2 March.

The tenants advise that they returned briefly to the premises on 2 March to take rubbish bags left outside to the landfill together with a desk. When they arrived at the premises, new tenants were already moving in. This accords with the landlord’s evidence that new tenants moved in that day. Photos taken by the landlord on 2 March 2025 also show that the new tenants’ belongings were present in one of the rooms.

I accept the tenants’ submissions that they vacated the premises on 1 March 2025; that returning to remove some rubbish on 2 March 2025 did not prevent the new tenants from taking possession of the premises; and, it would be unfair to require them to pay an extra day’s rent. Therefore, I accept that the tenants only owe one day’s rent to 1 March 2025 as shown on the landlord’s rent record produced in evidence.

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 tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.

Both parties produced photo/video evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy after the tenants say they completed cleaning. After carefully reviewing the evidence, I find that then kitchen rangehood and the shower box including the glass shower door was not left reasonably clean. I consider that the landlord’s claim for costs to clean those areas only is justified. The rest of the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As the landlord has mostly succeeded with their claim, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5189456 — net $289.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (1 day	$112.85	Rent arrears (1 day
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$289.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$289.85

Order

Jonathan Mungo Rich, Emin Kaya and Johnathan English to pay Ihome Property Management Limited As Agent For Yunli Lian $289.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants gave notice to end the tenancy on 1 March 2025 and vacated that day. The landlord claims a further day’s rent to 2 March 2025 on the grounds that the tenants returned to the premises on 2 March to finish cleaning and to remove rubbish and belongings. Therefore, the landlord argues that the tenants had not handed over possession of the premises on 1 March and they seek rent to 2 March.
The tenants advise that they returned briefly to the premises on 2 March to take rubbish bags left outside to the landfill together with a desk. When they arrived at the premises, new tenants were already moving in. This accords with the landlord’s evidence that new tenants moved in that day. Photos taken by the landlord on 2 March 2025 also show that the new tenants’ belongings were present in one of the rooms.
I accept the tenants’ submissions that they vacated the premises on 1 March 2025; that returning to remove some rubbish on 2 March 2025 did not prevent the new tenants from taking possession of the premises; and, it would be unfair to require them to pay an extra day’s rent. Therefore, I accept that the tenants only owe one day’s rent to 1 March 2025 as shown on the landlord’s rent record produced in evidence.

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 tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
Both parties produced photo/video evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy after the tenants say they completed cleaning. After carefully reviewing the evidence, I find that then kitchen rangehood and the shower box including the glass shower door was not left reasonably clean. I consider that the landlord’s claim for costs to clean those areas only is justified. The rest of the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As the landlord has mostly succeeded with their claim, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5189456 — Cleanliness at 162F Barrack Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5189456 — Cleanliness at 162F Barrack Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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