What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356326 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 5356326?

Break Lease Costs: $609.10 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356326?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356326?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13218101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356326 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 5356326?

Break Lease Costs: $609.10 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356326?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356326?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13218101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356326 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356326 — net $1,110.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window cleaning	$201.25	Window cleaning
Break lease costs	$609.10	Break lease costs
Curtain cleaning	$300.00	Curtain cleaning
Net award	$1,110.35
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,110.35

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356326 — net $1,110.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window cleaning	$201.25	Window cleaning
Break lease costs	$609.10	Break lease costs
Curtain cleaning	$300.00	Curtain cleaning
Net award	$1,110.35
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,110.35

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,110.35 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,110.35 [The tenant/s]: $1,489.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for their bond and claim repayment of three weeks and one day rent on the ground that the landlords should have found a new tenant earlier than they did after the parties agreed to end the fixed term tenancy early.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy, the break lease expenses and payment of the bond.
The landlords withdrew their claim for water rates and the tenants accept the claim for the break lease expenses. The disputed claims are for window cleaning and dry-cleaning drapes.
The landlords dispute the tenants’ claim for rent repayment. Background
The tenancy began in April 2022 for a one-year fixed term. There were yearly renewals to April 2025 when the tenants wanted to go to a periodic tenancy because they wanted to buy a house. The landlords wanted a fixed term, and the parties agreed a six-month fixed term to 25 October 2025.
The rent was increased on 14 May from $610 to $650 per week. The landlords said that they kept the rent below the market rent. There was no evidence of market rent in the area.
The tenants sought a break lease in July and the premises were advertised on 29 July at $690 per week. There were two applicants, and one was accepted but that applicant did not proceed.
The rent was reduced to $650 after three weeks and then a week or two later to $620. That would be at the end of August/beginning of September.
The tenants last day in the premises was 1 September.
There was an exit inspection on 2 September and a report followed.
The landlords found that some areas of the premises required more cleaning, and they complied a long list of cleaning tasks to be completed by the tenants which they sent to them.
The tenants said that they completed the tasks on the list but then the landlords required them to do still more cleaning. Specifically, to the interior windows and frames and some drapes.
The owners had attended the premises, and they were unhappy with the condition of the windows and the drapes.
One of the tenants returned to the premises but she did not attend the hearing, and it is unclear what additional cleaning she did.
The tenants who attended the hearing said that they felt that they had attended to the additional cleaning on the list, and they felt harassed by the landlords’ demands. Therefore, they did not engage with them further with respect to cleaning the premises.
The landlords then engaged a cleaner to clean the windows at a cost of $201.25 and took down the drapes and had them dry cleaned at a cost of $1,728.
The landlords found new tenants on 9 September and the tenancy began on 26 September at a rental of $620 per week.
The tenants have paid rent to 8 September. The landlords do not claim payment of the $30 per week rent shortfall from 8 September to 25 October. Relevant Law
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, including inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Break lease agreements do not usually define the landlord’s obligations with respect to finding a new tenant. It is fair and reasonable to imply a term in those circumstances that the landlord must act reasonably to find a new tenant. Discussion and Decision Break Lease Agreement
The issue here is whether the landlords acted reasonably to find a new tenant. The tenants say that they did not because they advertised the premises at a significantly higher rent than the tenants were paying. They say that if they had advertised at the same rent, it is likely that they would have found a new tenant to start by the beginning of September.
The tenants said that they were told by Tenancy Services that landlords in this situation must advertise the premises at the same rent as the tenants are paying. I can see the attraction of that based on the tenants’ interests in finding a new tenant promptly and the fairness of the landlord not profiting from the break lease. But I do not agree that it is required by law.
As I have said, in my view the legal requirement is for the landlord to act reasonably. In practice, it would be reasonable for the landlord to ask for the market rent. That can be difficult to judge, and it is not uncommon for landlords to advertise at the higher end of the possible range and then to reduce the rent depending on the response. I note that a landlord may be tempted to increase the rent if there is a good response, but the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) prohibits that.
In this case the landlords did get some response at $690 per week but it was not converted to a tenancy. They then reduced the rent after three weeks and then reduced it to below the passing rent.
I note that a landlord is not required to agree to a break lease. They can refuse and leave it to the tenant to find someone to take an assignment of the tenancy. That is also subject to the landlord’s consent which must not be unreasonably withheld. Finding an assignee can be problematic especially with a short term such as in this case.
The tenants could also have sought to sublet the premises with the consent of the landlords.
The landlords pointed out that the winter months are not the best time to find tenants and they would have been in a better position if the tenancy had run its course, and they were advertising for tenants in the Spring. I accept that.
After considering all the circumstances in this case I find that the landlords did not act unreasonably by seeking a higher rent initially and overall, they acted reasonably in finding a new tenant. I note as well that if they had advertised at the passing rent, it is difficult to know what difference that would have made. As it was, they found a tenant only after they reduced the rent to below the passing rent. It follows that I must dismiss the tenants’ claim for repayment of rent. Window Cleaning
I acknowledge that the tenants attended to the items on the landlords’ list, and it seems that it was only after the owners inspected the premises that the request came for the windows to be fully cleaned. The landlords said that they initially thought it was the outside of the windows that were the problem.
The tenants remained the tenants until the start of the new tenancy, and it was at that time that they were required to return premises to the landlords in reasonably clean condition. I accept that they found it annoying that the landlords were adding cleaning tasks after sending them a lengthy list of tasks, but the obligation remains.
The evidence shows that the windows did need cleaning and that was graphically illustrated by the state of cleaner’s cloths after they were used to clean the window frames.
The tenants were not willing to do any further cleaning and so it was reasonable for the landlords to engage a cleaner to clean the windows.
I have therefore awarded the cost of the window cleaning. Drapes
The landlords’ photographs show some staining to some drapes. The staining to the linings appears to be from mould. There were 12 drapes and not all of them were photographed. They also show small stains on the drapes in bedroom 3. The tenants’ photographs also show some staining to the lining and to front of drapes.
The landlords suggested a cleaning product for the tenants to use to clean the drapes, but they did not go back to the premises to clean them.
The landlords went to the premises, removed the drapes and took them to the dry cleaners. There is a receipt from the dry cleaners in the sum of $1,728 but no invoice.
The landlords did not make any attempt to clean the curtains themselves. All parties agreed that washing the curtains would be risky because it could damage them. But spot cleaning them was obviously an option and the landlords had suggested it to the tenants. Because it wasn’t attempted, it is not known how effective it would have been.
This is a problem for the landlords because it is possible that it could have avoided the need for expensive dry cleaning. Parties have an obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate (lessen) their loss.
The tenants had made it clear that they did not intend returning to the premises to do anymore cleaning. On 19 September, the landlords told them that the drapes would be dry cleaned what the likely cost of the dry cleaning would be. That appears to be the first time that dry cleaning them was mentioned and it did not give the tenants the option of returning to clean the drapes to avoid the expense of dry cleaning.
As well, it is not clear from the evidence how many drapes were affected and to what degree they were affected.
After considering all the circumstances, I have concluded that the tenants should not be required to pay for the dry cleaning. But some compensation for cleaning the drapes should be awarded. I find that an award of $300 is reasonable for hand cleaning them.
The parties have each had mixed success and so I make no award of the filing fees.
The bond will be split according to my order. Suppression
Both parties seek name suppression. In my view there is little public interest in the parties being identified. The parties have acted honestly believing that they were doing the right thing, and it is fair to grant them all name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356326 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356326 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions