What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212811 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5212811?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212811?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12023891-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212811 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5212811?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212811?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12023891-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

24A Taka Street, Takanini, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212811 — State of repair

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 [bond number] to [the tenants] immediately.
The landlord’s claim is proven to a de minimis extent. However, no order for compensation is made.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.
Sarath Prasad attended the hearing for the landlord’s agent, initially by video and then by audio due to poor sound quality when using the video link.
The tenants attended the hearing for themselves by video.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and garden work following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean when the tenancy ended, and the tenants moved out.
The tenants dispute the landlord’s claims. Legal principles
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 2
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Discussion
The main evidence was photographs and videos that CSI’s property managers had taken of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy and at its end.
The entry photographs were numerous and generally helpful, but of poor resolution. Nonetheless, the photographs are sufficient to show that generally and overall the premises was reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenants, however, pointed out that there were some cleaning deficits when they moved in. The landlord gave them a one-day rent credit for that which amounted to about $100.00.
The exit photographs were of better quality than the entry photographs and the landlord also submitted several videos that had higher resolution again.
The photographs and videos show that generally and overall the tenants left the premises reasonably clean, but there were some minor lapses in cleaning including, the shower door had soap scum residue that probably required a more astringent cleaning product than the tenants used, the oven had some small areas around the edges of the door in particular that could have down with more scrubbing, some of the 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. kitchen drawers and shelves could have done with a further wipe-down, and some drawers in the garage had a little detritus that would have benefitted further cleaning.
I would likely have ordered in the vicinity of $100.00 for the further cleaning required, but I accept the premises was not presented clean. The landlord gave the tenants a $100.00 credit for it, but it is more probable than not that the landlords’ entry cleaning deficits were greater than the tenants’ exit cleaning deficits.
The landlord also claimed for garden work. However, the photographs and videos show the tenants left the garden reasonably tidy; and probably tidier than at the beginning of the tenancy. Further, the landlord had got the tenants to maintain the premises’ hedges, which is a landlord obligation. It would be unfair to order the tenants to pay the landlord for not leaving the garden tidy when throughout the tenancy the tenants have done work to the garden they should have been asked to do.
The tenant left a garden bin full, but that is because Council had not yet emptied the bin. No doubt part of the green waste consisted of hedge trimmings, which were the landlord’s responsibility. Moreover, the general bins were not empty at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenants did fail to leave the premises reasonably clean in some minor respects. However, it would not be fair or correct to order the tenants to pay the landlord any compensation in the circumstances.
The Tribunal therefore makes no order for compensation in favour of the landlord. Non-publication
The tenants request non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 3
The tenants have been substantially successful in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants’ request for non-publication is granted.

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 [bond number] to [the tenants] immediately.
The landlord’s claim is proven to a de minimis extent. However, no order for compensation is made.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.
Sarath Prasad attended the hearing for the landlord’s agent, initially by video and then by audio due to poor sound quality when using the video link.
The tenants attended the hearing for themselves by video.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and garden work following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean when the tenancy ended, and the tenants moved out.
The tenants dispute the landlord’s claims. Legal principles
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 2
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Discussion
The main evidence was photographs and videos that CSI’s property managers had taken of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy and at its end.
The entry photographs were numerous and generally helpful, but of poor resolution. Nonetheless, the photographs are sufficient to show that generally and overall the premises was reasonably clean at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenants, however, pointed out that there were some cleaning deficits when they moved in. The landlord gave them a one-day rent credit for that which amounted to about $100.00.
The exit photographs were of better quality than the entry photographs and the landlord also submitted several videos that had higher resolution again.
The photographs and videos show that generally and overall the tenants left the premises reasonably clean, but there were some minor lapses in cleaning including, the shower door had soap scum residue that probably required a more astringent cleaning product than the tenants used, the oven had some small areas around the edges of the door in particular that could have down with more scrubbing, some of the 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. kitchen drawers and shelves could have done with a further wipe-down, and some drawers in the garage had a little detritus that would have benefitted further cleaning.
I would likely have ordered in the vicinity of $100.00 for the further cleaning required, but I accept the premises was not presented clean. The landlord gave the tenants a $100.00 credit for it, but it is more probable than not that the landlords’ entry cleaning deficits were greater than the tenants’ exit cleaning deficits.
The landlord also claimed for garden work. However, the photographs and videos show the tenants left the garden reasonably tidy; and probably tidier than at the beginning of the tenancy. Further, the landlord had got the tenants to maintain the premises’ hedges, which is a landlord obligation. It would be unfair to order the tenants to pay the landlord for not leaving the garden tidy when throughout the tenancy the tenants have done work to the garden they should have been asked to do.
The tenant left a garden bin full, but that is because Council had not yet emptied the bin. No doubt part of the green waste consisted of hedge trimmings, which were the landlord’s responsibility. Moreover, the general bins were not empty at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenants did fail to leave the premises reasonably clean in some minor respects. However, it would not be fair or correct to order the tenants to pay the landlord any compensation in the circumstances.
The Tribunal therefore makes no order for compensation in favour of the landlord. Non-publication
The tenants request non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 3
The tenants have been substantially successful in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants’ request for non-publication is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212811 — State of repair at 24A Taka Street, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212811 — State of repair at 24A Taka Street, Takanini, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions