What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204852 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 5204852?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $31.52 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204852?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11964832-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204852 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 5204852?

Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $31.52 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204852?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11964832-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204852 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5204852 — net $64.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$60.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$31.52		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$91.52	$27.00
Net award	$64.52
Bond	$330.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$64.52

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Bayleys Property Management On Behalf Of Golden Apple Limited Sarah Hazlett $64.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $330.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Bayleys Property Management On Behalf Of Golden Apple Limited Sarah Hazlett: $64.52 [The tenant/s]: $265.48

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord had not filed a counterclaim (see s.22B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The tenants consented to the landlords claim being heard at the same time as the tenants claim.
The tenants seek release of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal costs following the end of the tenancy.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 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.
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).
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.
The landlord provided photos of the premises, both at the commencement of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. The tenants provided a video of the condition of the premises prior to them conducting any end of tenancy cleaning.
In this matter, I consider that the landlord’s photos are relevant to the consideration by the Tribunal of whether the premises have been left reasonably clean and tidy. The burden of proving that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, is on the landlord.
I have reviewed the photos. I find that the cupboards under the kitchen bench have not been left reasonably clean and tidy. The photos of the exterior of the premises show that some small amount of weeding would have been required to bring the premises to the required standard. Otherwise, I do not consider that the landlord has proven their remaining claim for cleaning and garden work.
The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim for carpet cleaning. The photos of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy, show that the carpet and skirting boards were in a similar condition to that shown in the photos at the end of the tenancy .
The exterior photo show that the tenants have mown the lawn. A small amount of weeds are shown in the end of tenancy photos which are not displayed in the pre tenancy photos.
Taking all of the above factors into consideration, I find that the tenant should pay the landlord the sum of $60.00 for the further cleaning and exterior weeding required to bring the premises to the required standard.
The tenants accept that green waste wheelie bins were left full at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice for $31.52 for the removal. The tenants said that the bins had been in a similar condition at the commencement of the tenancy. None of the photos or records from the commencement of the tenancy indicate that the bins were full at that time. That includes evidence of the tenants raising issues about the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy with the landlord. The tenants are ordered to pay the landlord $31.52.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have applied for name suppression. The tenants have been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5204852 — net $64.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$60.00		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$31.52		Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$91.52	$27.00
Net award	$64.52
Bond	$330.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$64.52

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Bayleys Property Management On Behalf Of Golden Apple Limited Sarah Hazlett $64.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $330.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Bayleys Property Management On Behalf Of Golden Apple Limited Sarah Hazlett: $64.52 [The tenant/s]: $265.48

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord had not filed a counterclaim (see s.22B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The tenants consented to the landlords claim being heard at the same time as the tenants claim.
The tenants seek release of their bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal costs following the end of the tenancy.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 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.
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).
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.
The landlord provided photos of the premises, both at the commencement of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. The tenants provided a video of the condition of the premises prior to them conducting any end of tenancy cleaning.
In this matter, I consider that the landlord’s photos are relevant to the consideration by the Tribunal of whether the premises have been left reasonably clean and tidy. The burden of proving that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy, is on the landlord.
I have reviewed the photos. I find that the cupboards under the kitchen bench have not been left reasonably clean and tidy. The photos of the exterior of the premises show that some small amount of weeding would have been required to bring the premises to the required standard. Otherwise, I do not consider that the landlord has proven their remaining claim for cleaning and garden work.
The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim for carpet cleaning. The photos of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy, show that the carpet and skirting boards were in a similar condition to that shown in the photos at the end of the tenancy .
The exterior photo show that the tenants have mown the lawn. A small amount of weeds are shown in the end of tenancy photos which are not displayed in the pre tenancy photos.
Taking all of the above factors into consideration, I find that the tenant should pay the landlord the sum of $60.00 for the further cleaning and exterior weeding required to bring the premises to the required standard.
The tenants accept that green waste wheelie bins were left full at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice for $31.52 for the removal. The tenants said that the bins had been in a similar condition at the commencement of the tenancy. None of the photos or records from the commencement of the tenancy indicate that the bins were full at that time. That includes evidence of the tenants raising issues about the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy with the landlord. The tenants are ordered to pay the landlord $31.52.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have applied for name suppression. The tenants have been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204852 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204852 — 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