What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5211877 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 5211877?

Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211877?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020722-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5211877 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 5211877?

Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211877?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020722-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Edwin Street, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5211877 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5211877 — net $40.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning and curtain cleaning	$40.00	Carpet Cleaning and curtain cleaning
Net award	$40.00
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$40.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Alexandra & Dominique Touchaud $40.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Alexandra & Dominique Touchaud: $40.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,600.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants seek a refund of the Bond. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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. 1 The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. 2 The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work). 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 5 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 6 A landlord should expect to undertake some cleaning at the end of the tenancy as part of the business of being a landlord.
The tenancy ended on 30 December 2024. The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided pre- tenancy and post-tenancy reports and photographs and invoices in support of the claim. The landlord claimed $211.66 for carpet and blind cleaning, and $479.55 for general cleaning.
The tenants dispute the claim. They say they left the premises in a similar state as when they received it and did undertake cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The tenants also provided photographs from the start and end of the tenancy. The ingoing photographs show the premises did have some unclean surfaces. The tenants say they were emailed by the landlord on 22 January 2025, nearly a month after the tenancy ended, saying there was some minor cleaning on the shower door required, and again then 6 February 2025 saying further cleaning was required.
The photographs initially submitted with the claim by the landlord were date stamped 2 February 2025. The tenants say that in the period from when they vacated until February 2025 some dirt and fly mess would have been collected. Given the delay in the end of the tenancy and the date the post tenancy photographs provided in support of the claim were taken I consider some of the dust and mould may have accumulated during this time. However, I consider one of the curtains does appear to have mould that would have accumulated during the tenancy.
Overall, I have reviewed the photographs provided and consider the tenants were close to meeting the standard of leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, the tenants should have cleaned the stains from parts of the carpet and cleaned the dirty curtain. I consider the tenants should pay $40.00 compensation to reflect the further cleaning they should have undertaken. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 6 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord claimed the cost of one lightbulb. The tenant said they left a number of lightbulbs in the kitchen cupboard to replace any lights not going. The landlord suggested these might have been removed by the cleaner and given the value of the lightbulb the landlord did not pursue the claim. I also note the ingoing inspection report refers to some lightbulbs not working. The claim for the light bulb is dismissed. Bond
The bond is to be paid out by the Bond centre in accordance with the division set out in the order. Filing fee
Both parties have had some success with respect to their applications therefore I do not order the filing fee in respect of the applications as each parties filing fee reimbursement would cancel out the other. Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenants sought name suppression and as they have had substantial success in their claim, I grant them name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5211877 — net $40.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning and curtain cleaning	$40.00	Carpet Cleaning and curtain cleaning
Net award	$40.00
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$40.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Alexandra & Dominique Touchaud $40.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited As Agent For Alexandra & Dominique Touchaud: $40.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,600.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants seek a refund of the Bond. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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. 1 The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. 2 The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work). 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 5 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 6 A landlord should expect to undertake some cleaning at the end of the tenancy as part of the business of being a landlord.
The tenancy ended on 30 December 2024. The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided pre- tenancy and post-tenancy reports and photographs and invoices in support of the claim. The landlord claimed $211.66 for carpet and blind cleaning, and $479.55 for general cleaning.
The tenants dispute the claim. They say they left the premises in a similar state as when they received it and did undertake cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The tenants also provided photographs from the start and end of the tenancy. The ingoing photographs show the premises did have some unclean surfaces. The tenants say they were emailed by the landlord on 22 January 2025, nearly a month after the tenancy ended, saying there was some minor cleaning on the shower door required, and again then 6 February 2025 saying further cleaning was required.
The photographs initially submitted with the claim by the landlord were date stamped 2 February 2025. The tenants say that in the period from when they vacated until February 2025 some dirt and fly mess would have been collected. Given the delay in the end of the tenancy and the date the post tenancy photographs provided in support of the claim were taken I consider some of the dust and mould may have accumulated during this time. However, I consider one of the curtains does appear to have mould that would have accumulated during the tenancy.
Overall, I have reviewed the photographs provided and consider the tenants were close to meeting the standard of leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, the tenants should have cleaned the stains from parts of the carpet and cleaned the dirty curtain. I consider the tenants should pay $40.00 compensation to reflect the further cleaning they should have undertaken. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 5 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998). 6 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord claimed the cost of one lightbulb. The tenant said they left a number of lightbulbs in the kitchen cupboard to replace any lights not going. The landlord suggested these might have been removed by the cleaner and given the value of the lightbulb the landlord did not pursue the claim. I also note the ingoing inspection report refers to some lightbulbs not working. The claim for the light bulb is dismissed. Bond
The bond is to be paid out by the Bond centre in accordance with the division set out in the order. Filing fee
Both parties have had some success with respect to their applications therefore I do not order the filing fee in respect of the applications as each parties filing fee reimbursement would cancel out the other. Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenants sought name suppression and as they have had substantial success in their claim, I grant them name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211877 — Cleanliness at 3 Edwin Street, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211877 — Cleanliness at 3 Edwin Street, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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