Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5224431 — Tenancy dispute at 84B Marshall Street, Fairfield, Hamilton 3214
Decided 29 Jul 2025 · Published 29 Jul 2025 · Application 5224431
- Cleanliness
- Mould & damp
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Tribunal directs suppression orders in favour of the tenants.
- [The tenant/s] to pay Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Louis Edward Liuchan $830.19 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Louis Edward Liuchan: $830.19 [The tenant/s]: $1,209.81
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Harrison and Ms Masters represented the landlord.
- The landlord has applied for reimbursement of the costs they incurred in cleaning the property, removing rubbish and tidying the garden following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenants disagree with the costs sought and want return of their bond.
- As the landlord is the applicant, they have the evidential burden of proving their claims to the relevant standard which is the balance of probabilities.
- They say that the property was provided reasonably clean and tidy and have provided a written pre-tenancy inspection/defect report although no photos. Following the end of the 12-month tenancy their evidence is that the property was returned unclean with some rubbish remaining. The lawns were partially mown but there were many areas of significant growth remaining.
- They provided an invoice for the cleaning of $494.99 which primarily focussed on ceilings and walls as well as removing some rubbish. The invoice for garden work was $308.20 and stated: Section tidy, Gardens Trim shrubs, Weed eat hedges and mow, Spray all areas needed, Dump fee.
- The tenants have the following responses to the claims: a. They were not afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to the landlord’s concerns. They say they should have been offered the opportunity to rectify the areas of concern before significant cost was incurred on their behalf. They had employed a cleaner to clean the home and had arranged someone to do the gardens after the tenancy ended, but were not allowed to bring them in. b. They were not provided with the photos of the areas until just prior to the hearing which they consider prejudiced them in responding to the claim. c. They question whether the photos were taken at the final inspection because they do not accord with how they recall they left the property. d. The costs are excessive given the amount of work that was required. If any cleaning or garden work was required, they say it would not / should not have cost this much. e. Money is tight and they have now been without their bond for many months. This has been an extremely stressful time for them, and they feel they have been treated unfairly by their former landlord.
- The relevant law is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986(RTA). Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA states that at the end of a 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.
- The tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. 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 on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. The number of people in the tenancy and the length of the tenancy are relevant to such an assessment. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
- Turning to the evidence. The photos of the garden certainly show the edges of the lawn have not been cut nor weed treated and in some areas the grass is very long. The landlord has provided date stamped photographs therefore I am satisfied they were taken at the end of the tenancy.
- Accordingly on the basis of this photographic evidence I am satisfied that the lawns and garden were not left reasonably tidy.
- The tenants argue they had asked for time to bring in their own contractor, but Ms Harrison denied their request. Ms Harrison does not recall this conversation and says she raised the issue at the key handover and advised them the landlord would have to get gardeners in.
- The RTA does not require landlords to allow tenants to rectify issues post tenancy. It is best practice to do so, but they are not obliged to. This is because section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA is a positive obligation on tenants. They are required to leave the gardens reasonably tidy when they vacate.
- Regarding the contention that the cost is excessive, I do not find it established in evidence that the cost was reasonable. The photos do show several areas that need tending to, but not an extensive amount. Given the lack of photos from the beginning of the tenancy it is also difficult to establish a comparison.
- Having assessed the evidence as a whole, I have reduced the claim to $200 which I consider more reasonable in the circumstances.
- I turn now to the invoice for the cleaning. The photos show fly dirt, small marks on walls, dust, some fingerprints and small areas of what looks like mould. Some rubbish was also left in the bins.
- Accordingly, I am satisfied that the tenants have not fully met their obligations.
- The invoice however does reference the cleaning of areas that I do not consider a tenant responsibility such as ceilings and light shades. I also do not find the amount charged reasonable in light of the small amount of work that would have been required to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state. Again my findings have been influenced by the lack of photos from the commencement of the tenancy.
- Having considered the situation carefully, I find that $200 is a more reasonable amount in light of the evidence provided.
- Because Quality Rental Management Limited As Agent For Louis Edward Liuchan has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. 1
- I also direct that suppression orders apply in favour of the tenants who defended the claim successfully to an extent. 2