What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229774 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 5229774?

Cleaning: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $373.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $69.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229774?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12449640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229774 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 5229774?

Cleaning: $103.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $373.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $69.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229774?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12449640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229774 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229774 — net $573.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: and remove garden rubbish	$373.75	Lawns and Garden work: and remove garden rubbish
__________________________________________________________________________________ 52297742 Cleaning	$103.50	__________________________________________________________________________________ 52297742 Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$69.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$573.25
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$573.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
The claim bought by Huriana Kopeke-TeAho relating to the refund of the bond is dismissed.
The claim bought by the landlord for replacement bulbs is dismissed.
Hazel Astrid Elder, Lucy Hu and Eugene Parker to pay [the landlord/s] $573.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $573.25 Hazel Astrid Elder, Lucy Hu and Eugene Parker: $1906.75

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Hazel Elder was the only tenant appearing though all of the named tenants, Hazel Elder says, knew of the hearing taking place. They therefore could have attended if they had wanted.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for a refund of the bond. Civil burden of proof
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.”
In a case like this it is the landlord that must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” The tenancy
This was a reasonably lengthy tenancy with the tenancy being varied at different points to add and remove tenants throughout its duration. None of the tenants listed in this application were tenants at the start of this tenancy.
Lucy Hu and Eugene Parker joined Hazel Astrid Elder (who had by this stage already joined the tenancy) as tenants on 3 February 2023. While the tenant says Lucy Hu left the tenancy in 2023 the landlord provided evidence that the request to remove Lucy Hu was not completed by the tenants and so I accept that Lucy Hu remains a tenant.
I heard from both parties how Huriana Kopeke-TeAho formally left the tenancy in 2021. A change of tenant form was provided.
I am not satisfied that Huriana Kopeke-TeAho has a claim to the bond against the landlord (there may be a claim between tenants but that is not for this Tribunal to decide). The variation signed confirmed that Huriana Kopeke- TeAho was leaving and would make no claim to the bond. The application bought by Huriana Kopeke-TeAho for the refund of the bond to her is therefore dismissed.
The landlord did not bring their application against Huriana Kopeke-TeAho.
I am satisfied that the tenants at the end of this tenancy are Lucy Hu, Eugene Parker and Hazel Astrid Elder. The landlord’s claim is therefore correctly directed at these three tenants and those same three tenants may also seek to have the bond reimbursed to them (as mentioned above, how that bond is then apportioned between them (and anyone else, such as former tenants) is not an issue this Tribunal can determine).

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Standard light bulbs should be replaced if they are not working.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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 determine whether the premises will be reasonably clean.
The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy and the general condition of the premises. For example, surfaces that are new and in good condition will be easier to clean than older surfaces which are worn particularly with paintwork.
The landlord claims $373.75 for gardening work including the removal of garden waste after the end of the tenancy.
Having viewed the photographs of the exterior of the property I am satisfied that the garden and side of the house was not left in a reasonably tidy condition and required weeding.
Given the work evidenced as needing to be done I find the sum claimed is reasonable and I award this in full.
Turning to the interior house cleaning, having viewed the photographs of the property I am satisfied that there are discrete areas of the property that were not left reasonably clean and tidy. However, there was insufficient evidence to support the extent of the work and the overall sum claimed. The amount of work claimed (6 hours of cleaning as per the invoice at $45 p/h plus GST) would have more likely than not have taken the premises to a state better than the tenant was required to return it in.
A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls and ceilings. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that the can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
Taking into account all of the evidence I award the landlord $103.50 for cleaning which is the sum I consider to be reasonable to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord says items were left at the tenancy and this related to a number of household items left in a cupboard that were disposed by the landlord as rubbish. The items are not identified as chattels on the ingoing tenancy inspection report.
The tenant says the items were left by a previous tenant who had left the tenancy. While this may be the case, in circumstances such as this, where a tenancy has been varied to remove/add tenants to accommodate changes to the tenancy agreement and the ingoing tenant(s) has not raised an issue with the landlord about this on entry (or soon after) and arguably could then have had the benefit of such items, I consider that the departing tenants are liable to remove the items/rubbish. They are liable to remove the items/rubbish, just as they are liable to fulfil other end of tenancy obligations, such as cleaning.
I consider that the tenant is liable to pay for the rubbish removal and the sums sought are reasonable. The sum ordered is proven.
The landlord seeks the cost of replacing lightbulbs. With the exception of a bulb for a wall light the tenant says that the lights were working at the end of the tenancy.
In relation to the wall light the tenant says that was not working upon them moving in. I am not satisfied the wall light is a standard bulb and therefore I do not consider this is a light bulb that the tenant is liable to replace. Its replacement I consider to be a maintenance issue which is a landlord obligation. I am also not satisfied that the bulb was working when these particular tenants moved into the property. Therefore, the claim for this bulb is dismissed.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven the claim in relation to the remaining bulbs. There was no written end of tenancy inspection from the landlord or other evidence showing the specific bulbs in question that were said not to be working. There was differing oral evidence and I have no reason to prefer the evidence of the landlord. This part of the claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I award the landlord reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants have not been substantially successful and in any event, their application was not strictly necessary (the return of the bond would have been determined in any event by the outcome of the landlord’s application) and so I have not reimbursed their filing fee. Suppression
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 (s 95A RTA).
The landlord sought suppression on their application and they have been substantially successful and so I award this.
The tenant does not seek suppression in its application and in any event has not been substantially successful. I see no reason to make such an award even if requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229774 — net $573.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: and remove garden rubbish	$373.75	Lawns and Garden work: and remove garden rubbish
__________________________________________________________________________________ 52297742 Cleaning	$103.50	__________________________________________________________________________________ 52297742 Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$69.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$573.25
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$573.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
The claim bought by Huriana Kopeke-TeAho relating to the refund of the bond is dismissed.
The claim bought by the landlord for replacement bulbs is dismissed.
Hazel Astrid Elder, Lucy Hu and Eugene Parker to pay [the landlord/s] $573.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $573.25 Hazel Astrid Elder, Lucy Hu and Eugene Parker: $1906.75

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Hazel Elder was the only tenant appearing though all of the named tenants, Hazel Elder says, knew of the hearing taking place. They therefore could have attended if they had wanted.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for a refund of the bond. Civil burden of proof
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.”
In a case like this it is the landlord that must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” The tenancy
This was a reasonably lengthy tenancy with the tenancy being varied at different points to add and remove tenants throughout its duration. None of the tenants listed in this application were tenants at the start of this tenancy.
Lucy Hu and Eugene Parker joined Hazel Astrid Elder (who had by this stage already joined the tenancy) as tenants on 3 February 2023. While the tenant says Lucy Hu left the tenancy in 2023 the landlord provided evidence that the request to remove Lucy Hu was not completed by the tenants and so I accept that Lucy Hu remains a tenant.
I heard from both parties how Huriana Kopeke-TeAho formally left the tenancy in 2021. A change of tenant form was provided.
I am not satisfied that Huriana Kopeke-TeAho has a claim to the bond against the landlord (there may be a claim between tenants but that is not for this Tribunal to decide). The variation signed confirmed that Huriana Kopeke- TeAho was leaving and would make no claim to the bond. The application bought by Huriana Kopeke-TeAho for the refund of the bond to her is therefore dismissed.
The landlord did not bring their application against Huriana Kopeke-TeAho.
I am satisfied that the tenants at the end of this tenancy are Lucy Hu, Eugene Parker and Hazel Astrid Elder. The landlord’s claim is therefore correctly directed at these three tenants and those same three tenants may also seek to have the bond reimbursed to them (as mentioned above, how that bond is then apportioned between them (and anyone else, such as former tenants) is not an issue this Tribunal can determine).

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Standard light bulbs should be replaced if they are not working.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 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 determine whether the premises will be reasonably clean.
The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy and the general condition of the premises. For example, surfaces that are new and in good condition will be easier to clean than older surfaces which are worn particularly with paintwork.
The landlord claims $373.75 for gardening work including the removal of garden waste after the end of the tenancy.
Having viewed the photographs of the exterior of the property I am satisfied that the garden and side of the house was not left in a reasonably tidy condition and required weeding.
Given the work evidenced as needing to be done I find the sum claimed is reasonable and I award this in full.
Turning to the interior house cleaning, having viewed the photographs of the property I am satisfied that there are discrete areas of the property that were not left reasonably clean and tidy. However, there was insufficient evidence to support the extent of the work and the overall sum claimed. The amount of work claimed (6 hours of cleaning as per the invoice at $45 p/h plus GST) would have more likely than not have taken the premises to a state better than the tenant was required to return it in.
A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls and ceilings. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that the can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
Taking into account all of the evidence I award the landlord $103.50 for cleaning which is the sum I consider to be reasonable to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord says items were left at the tenancy and this related to a number of household items left in a cupboard that were disposed by the landlord as rubbish. The items are not identified as chattels on the ingoing tenancy inspection report.
The tenant says the items were left by a previous tenant who had left the tenancy. While this may be the case, in circumstances such as this, where a tenancy has been varied to remove/add tenants to accommodate changes to the tenancy agreement and the ingoing tenant(s) has not raised an issue with the landlord about this on entry (or soon after) and arguably could then have had the benefit of such items, I consider that the departing tenants are liable to remove the items/rubbish. They are liable to remove the items/rubbish, just as they are liable to fulfil other end of tenancy obligations, such as cleaning.
I consider that the tenant is liable to pay for the rubbish removal and the sums sought are reasonable. The sum ordered is proven.
The landlord seeks the cost of replacing lightbulbs. With the exception of a bulb for a wall light the tenant says that the lights were working at the end of the tenancy.
In relation to the wall light the tenant says that was not working upon them moving in. I am not satisfied the wall light is a standard bulb and therefore I do not consider this is a light bulb that the tenant is liable to replace. Its replacement I consider to be a maintenance issue which is a landlord obligation. I am also not satisfied that the bulb was working when these particular tenants moved into the property. Therefore, the claim for this bulb is dismissed.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven the claim in relation to the remaining bulbs. There was no written end of tenancy inspection from the landlord or other evidence showing the specific bulbs in question that were said not to be working. There was differing oral evidence and I have no reason to prefer the evidence of the landlord. This part of the claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I award the landlord reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants have not been substantially successful and in any event, their application was not strictly necessary (the return of the bond would have been determined in any event by the outcome of the landlord’s application) and so I have not reimbursed their filing fee. Suppression
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 (s 95A RTA).
The landlord sought suppression on their application and they have been substantially successful and so I award this.
The tenant does not seek suppression in its application and in any event has not been substantially successful. I see no reason to make such an award even if requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229774 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229774 — Cleanliness

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