What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5219752 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5219752?

Cleaning: $90.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5219752?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5219752?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11931494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5219752 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5219752?

Cleaning: $90.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5219752?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5219752?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11931494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5219752 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5219752 — net $90.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
sTenant Cleaning	$90.57	sTenant Cleaning
Net award	$90.57
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$90.57

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay [a landlord] $90.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [A landlord]: $90.57 [The tenant]: $1,309.43 DescriptionLandlordsTenant Cleaning$90.57 Total award$90.57 Bond$90.57$1,309.43

Reasons

I heard this matter remotely on Microsoft Teams.
[Property manager’s name], the property manager, attended the hearing for the landlords.
The tenant did not attend. 1
The tenant had applied for return of the bond.
The landlords have applied for compensation for the cost of cleaning the premises after the tenancy, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment out of the bond.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

The landlords’ claim

The landlords provided copies of the entry and exit inspection reports and [the property manager] gave direct evidence about the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
[The property manager] submitted, among other areas, that the tenant did not leave the fridge, kitchen cupboards, benchtop, stovetop, oven rack, shower wall, bathroom mirror, and bathroom drawers reasonably clean. Legal principles
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 2
“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. 3
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, 1 The tenant did not join the hearing on MS Team nor answer their phone when the Tribunal telephoned the tenant’s telephone number. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(iii). 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Discussion
It is obvious from the landlords photographs that the tenant left the fridge unclean. Also, the cupboard doors could have done with a wipe. There was a small scrap of paper or a sticker in one cupboard that did not belong. The benchtop looks reasonably clean even though a wipe with a dry cloth would have removed some barely perceptible smear marks. The stovetop looks like it could do with a bit more of a clean with a more powerful cleaner. An oven rack looks like it would benefit from a soak and a scrub. [The property manager] says the extractor fan filter needed a clean. One of the shower walls and the bathroom mirror had a translucent residue that could be seen from certain angles. Conclusion
I find it proven that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean overall.
I estimate that about one hour’s work by a cleaner would have been sufficient to bring the premises up to the necessary standard. The cleaner’s invoice would also have inbuilt costs for travel for example. Therefore, I order the tenant to pay 50 percent of the landlords’ cleaner’s invoice.
The Tribunal orders the tenant to pay the landlord $90.57 from the bond. Filing fee
Both parties having been partially successful in their claims, I make no order for the filing fees. Non-publication
The landlords seek non-publication.
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. 4
The landlords have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the landlords’ conduct or any other circumstances.
The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 4 RTA, s 95A(1).
It is in the tenant’s interest that their name is not published. Publication would probably affect the tenant’s ability to obtain suitable rental accommodation in the future. The modest breach does not warrant that. Non-publication is in the public interest and not averse to the landlords’ interests.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties’ names and identifying particulars including the tenancy address.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5219752 — net $90.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
sTenant Cleaning	$90.57	sTenant Cleaning
Net award	$90.57
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$90.57

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay [a landlord] $90.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [A landlord]: $90.57 [The tenant]: $1,309.43 DescriptionLandlordsTenant Cleaning$90.57 Total award$90.57 Bond$90.57$1,309.43

Reasons

I heard this matter remotely on Microsoft Teams.
[Property manager’s name], the property manager, attended the hearing for the landlords.
The tenant did not attend. 1
The tenant had applied for return of the bond.
The landlords have applied for compensation for the cost of cleaning the premises after the tenancy, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment out of the bond.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

The landlords’ claim

The landlords provided copies of the entry and exit inspection reports and [the property manager] gave direct evidence about the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
[The property manager] submitted, among other areas, that the tenant did not leave the fridge, kitchen cupboards, benchtop, stovetop, oven rack, shower wall, bathroom mirror, and bathroom drawers reasonably clean. Legal principles
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 2
“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. 3
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, 1 The tenant did not join the hearing on MS Team nor answer their phone when the Tribunal telephoned the tenant’s telephone number. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(iii). 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Discussion
It is obvious from the landlords photographs that the tenant left the fridge unclean. Also, the cupboard doors could have done with a wipe. There was a small scrap of paper or a sticker in one cupboard that did not belong. The benchtop looks reasonably clean even though a wipe with a dry cloth would have removed some barely perceptible smear marks. The stovetop looks like it could do with a bit more of a clean with a more powerful cleaner. An oven rack looks like it would benefit from a soak and a scrub. [The property manager] says the extractor fan filter needed a clean. One of the shower walls and the bathroom mirror had a translucent residue that could be seen from certain angles. Conclusion
I find it proven that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean overall.
I estimate that about one hour’s work by a cleaner would have been sufficient to bring the premises up to the necessary standard. The cleaner’s invoice would also have inbuilt costs for travel for example. Therefore, I order the tenant to pay 50 percent of the landlords’ cleaner’s invoice.
The Tribunal orders the tenant to pay the landlord $90.57 from the bond. Filing fee
Both parties having been partially successful in their claims, I make no order for the filing fees. Non-publication
The landlords seek non-publication.
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. 4
The landlords have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the landlords’ conduct or any other circumstances.
The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 4 RTA, s 95A(1).
It is in the tenant’s interest that their name is not published. Publication would probably affect the tenant’s ability to obtain suitable rental accommodation in the future. The modest breach does not warrant that. Non-publication is in the public interest and not averse to the landlords’ interests.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties’ names and identifying particulars including the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5219752 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5219752 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean 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 leave the premises reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions