What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309242 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 5309242?

Cleaning: $218.11 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $321.43 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309242?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309242?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12481940-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309242 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 5309242?

Cleaning: $218.11 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $321.43 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309242?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309242?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12481940-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 5 Joseph Grove, Elderslea, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309242 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309242 — net $754.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$218.11		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: House (part	$400.00		Cleaning: House (part
Rubbish removal: (part	$200.00		Rubbish removal: (part
Cleaning: Removal of oil stain	$230.00		Cleaning: Removal of oil stain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$321.43	Rent credit
Total award	$1,076.11	$321.43
Net award	$754.68
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$754.68

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name.
Alexandra Heke to pay [The landlord/s] $754.68 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $754.68 Alexandra Heke: $765.32

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The tenant sought the return of her bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond. A rent credit of $321.43 was advised. That has been applied against the debt established in this order.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
This was a long tenancy of some 291 weeks. The entry photos showed a premises in reasonable condition although somewhat “tired”. Some rubbish present at the commencement predated the tenancy. That has relevance later in the exit claim for rubbish removal.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. 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. What is required is that premises including the kitchen and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell.
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 a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
The landlord claimed the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
Ingoing and exit photos were provided, as well as other evidence from both parties. Invoices were provided for cleaning ($684.25), carpet cleaning ($218.11), rubbish removal ($345.00) and removal of an oil stain ($230.00).
I deal with each in turn. Cleaning
There was a need for further cleaning. Key areas such as the oven and bathroom required cleaning. The landlord estimated the bulk of the cleaner’s effort was on removing dirt of other such marking from walls throughout the premises. Other tasks claimed included cleaning of door handles and a number of other fixtures or locations that are considered above what a tenant is required to do.
The need for further cleaning was not universal. However, I am satisfied the landlord has established evidentially the need for further cleaning through photos as provided. I observed during the hearing that a number of the wall photos showed them in a worn state. The tenant claimed a concern in wiping some walls clean was further damage to the wall finish. The landlord provided a video of her cleaning some markings successfully. Both stances have some justification.
I have also considered the feedback to tenant from the landlord via email after a routine inspection some 4-5 weeks before vacate. It said:
A routine inspection serves a different purpose than an exit inspection and I do not consider that email binds the landlord to exit claims, given furnishings, possessions, or parked cars can hide issues until vacate. I do weigh the observation of “a couple of cleaning issues” in the email against the later compensation claims for cleaning beyond what such an earlier statement might suggest.
I have further considered the evidence and submissions. Given that, and the general condition of the premises as well as the long tenancy, I have determined, on balance, the tenant share of the cleaning invoice should be reduced from the full amount as claimed to $400.00 to reflect her share. Carpet cleaning
The photos of the carpet established the need for carpet cleaning, particularly due to spot stains throughout. While mindful again of the tenancy duration, I consider the invoiced cost of $218.11 should be compensated and this is awarded in full. Rubbish removal
The landlord provided an invoice for $345.00. The invoice description was minimal, describing the task as “Remove rubbish from around the property left by tenant, dispose at landfill”.
Apart from a few smaller items, the bulk of the rubbish removal comprised items left in one shed space and a disassembled trampoline.
The entry report showed items left from a previous tenancy that appeared not dissimilar in volume to that left at the end in the shed space. Those entry items were disposed of by the tenant. I consider the entry and exit volumes cancel each other out.
The disassembled trampoline was bulky. The tenant had left it near the street, expecting someone to pick it up as arranged via Facebook Marketplace. It never was removed and the tenant did not return and remove it herself when advised by the landlord it remained. I accept it required removal at the expense of the landlord. However, without detail on the travel and landfill costs, the invoice of $345.00 appears excessive when much of the trampoline bulk comprised metal that should be disposed via an appropriate recycling facility rather than to landfill. In the absence of better clarity, I have allowed $200.00 for the uplift and disposal of the trampoline parts and some smaller items. Oil stain
A large oil strain on the driveway was found at exit. The tenant said she was uncertain when or how it occurred but based on other evidence I am satisfied it occurred during the tenancy and was more than normal wear on the driveway from a parked vehicle. I struggle to consider it was not later visible to the tenant after the vehicle was moved and the failure to attempt cleaning, or notify the landlord, once sighted left a more significant cleaning task later. The cleaning invoice for $230.00 was provided. A post-clean photo by the tenant shows the cleaning had been attempted – with a reasonable if not total result. The full invoice is awarded.
I accept and award the claim of $230.00 for the cleaning of the oil spill. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, name suppression is ordered. I have declined address suppression as the condition of the premises may be of future public interest to prospective tenants or others.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5309242 — net $754.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$218.11		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: House (part	$400.00		Cleaning: House (part
Rubbish removal: (part	$200.00		Rubbish removal: (part
Cleaning: Removal of oil stain	$230.00		Cleaning: Removal of oil stain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$321.43	Rent credit
Total award	$1,076.11	$321.43
Net award	$754.68
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$754.68

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name.
Alexandra Heke to pay [The landlord/s] $754.68 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $754.68 Alexandra Heke: $765.32

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The tenant sought the return of her bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond. A rent credit of $321.43 was advised. That has been applied against the debt established in this order.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
This was a long tenancy of some 291 weeks. The entry photos showed a premises in reasonable condition although somewhat “tired”. Some rubbish present at the commencement predated the tenancy. That has relevance later in the exit claim for rubbish removal.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. 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. What is required is that premises including the kitchen and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell.
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 a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
The landlord claimed the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
Ingoing and exit photos were provided, as well as other evidence from both parties. Invoices were provided for cleaning ($684.25), carpet cleaning ($218.11), rubbish removal ($345.00) and removal of an oil stain ($230.00).
I deal with each in turn. Cleaning
There was a need for further cleaning. Key areas such as the oven and bathroom required cleaning. The landlord estimated the bulk of the cleaner’s effort was on removing dirt of other such marking from walls throughout the premises. Other tasks claimed included cleaning of door handles and a number of other fixtures or locations that are considered above what a tenant is required to do.
The need for further cleaning was not universal. However, I am satisfied the landlord has established evidentially the need for further cleaning through photos as provided. I observed during the hearing that a number of the wall photos showed them in a worn state. The tenant claimed a concern in wiping some walls clean was further damage to the wall finish. The landlord provided a video of her cleaning some markings successfully. Both stances have some justification.
I have also considered the feedback to tenant from the landlord via email after a routine inspection some 4-5 weeks before vacate. It said:
A routine inspection serves a different purpose than an exit inspection and I do not consider that email binds the landlord to exit claims, given furnishings, possessions, or parked cars can hide issues until vacate. I do weigh the observation of “a couple of cleaning issues” in the email against the later compensation claims for cleaning beyond what such an earlier statement might suggest.
I have further considered the evidence and submissions. Given that, and the general condition of the premises as well as the long tenancy, I have determined, on balance, the tenant share of the cleaning invoice should be reduced from the full amount as claimed to $400.00 to reflect her share. Carpet cleaning
The photos of the carpet established the need for carpet cleaning, particularly due to spot stains throughout. While mindful again of the tenancy duration, I consider the invoiced cost of $218.11 should be compensated and this is awarded in full. Rubbish removal
The landlord provided an invoice for $345.00. The invoice description was minimal, describing the task as “Remove rubbish from around the property left by tenant, dispose at landfill”.
Apart from a few smaller items, the bulk of the rubbish removal comprised items left in one shed space and a disassembled trampoline.
The entry report showed items left from a previous tenancy that appeared not dissimilar in volume to that left at the end in the shed space. Those entry items were disposed of by the tenant. I consider the entry and exit volumes cancel each other out.
The disassembled trampoline was bulky. The tenant had left it near the street, expecting someone to pick it up as arranged via Facebook Marketplace. It never was removed and the tenant did not return and remove it herself when advised by the landlord it remained. I accept it required removal at the expense of the landlord. However, without detail on the travel and landfill costs, the invoice of $345.00 appears excessive when much of the trampoline bulk comprised metal that should be disposed via an appropriate recycling facility rather than to landfill. In the absence of better clarity, I have allowed $200.00 for the uplift and disposal of the trampoline parts and some smaller items. Oil stain
A large oil strain on the driveway was found at exit. The tenant said she was uncertain when or how it occurred but based on other evidence I am satisfied it occurred during the tenancy and was more than normal wear on the driveway from a parked vehicle. I struggle to consider it was not later visible to the tenant after the vehicle was moved and the failure to attempt cleaning, or notify the landlord, once sighted left a more significant cleaning task later. The cleaning invoice for $230.00 was provided. A post-clean photo by the tenant shows the cleaning had been attempted – with a reasonable if not total result. The full invoice is awarded.
I accept and award the claim of $230.00 for the cleaning of the oil spill. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, name suppression is ordered. I have declined address suppression as the condition of the premises may be of future public interest to prospective tenants or others.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309242 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 5 Joseph Grove, Elderslea, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309242 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 5 Joseph Grove, Elderslea, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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