What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359634 about?

The tribunal order states: Philip Ireland and Lucy Moors to pay David Gorrie $150.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5359634?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359634?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12886191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359634 about?

The tribunal order states: Philip Ireland and Lucy Moors to pay David Gorrie $150.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5359634?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359634?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12886191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

77 Ranch Road, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui 3116 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359634 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359634 — net $150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Net award	$150.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$150.00

Order

Philip Ireland and Lucy Moors to pay David Gorrie $150.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5131906-006) immediately apportioned as follows: David Gorrie: $150.00 Philip Ireland and Lucy Moors: $2,850.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning from the bond.
The tenants want their bond returned.
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.”
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?

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 (“RTA”).
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA 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 stove 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. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
This tenancy ending was compressed with a new tenancy commencing later the same day.
No final inspection was conducted by the landlord or anyone else. How the new tenant received the keys was uncertain.
The landlord met the new tenant later that day. He submitted he was concerned regarding the condition of the premises and that he personally observed the new tenant undertaking significant cleaning effort. That said, no photos were taken at the time by the landlord, nor was any resolution or compensation discussed with the new tenant.
Some ten days after the new tenancy commenced, an email from the new tenant regarding the condition of the premises at the start, and the cleaning effort required was sent to Sharyn Golding. Ms Golding was described by the landlord as his letting agent but from submissions it appears her role would extend beyond that, albeit without a formal agency arrangement.
The landlord, based on photos provided by the new tenant (and her statement of tasks undertaken), and a later obtained quote (not house or task specific) for $506.00, sought $500.00 as compensation.
He stated this sum has been promised to the new tenant for her cleaning efforts – why that remains unpaid and subject to this matter concluding is not understood given her issues and experiences. Any such compensation would address any failure of the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the new tenancy (see s 45(1)(a)). Any possible recovery here should have no bearing on that.
The landlord has been unable to produce sufficient evidence to support the compensation sum as claimed (I also accept any “loss” to the landlord is yet to be incurred). Despite that, I have determined some further cleaning was more than likely required and some compensation is due. Based on the limited evidence, and submissions made, I conclude that $150.00 should be awarded from the bond to the landlord. Filing fee
I make no order regarding filing fees. Each party is to carry their respective cost. 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 not been wholly or substantially successful, no suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5359634 — net $150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Net award	$150.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$150.00

Order

Philip Ireland and Lucy Moors to pay David Gorrie $150.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5131906-006) immediately apportioned as follows: David Gorrie: $150.00 Philip Ireland and Lucy Moors: $2,850.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning from the bond.
The tenants want their bond returned.
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.”
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?

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 (“RTA”).
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA 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 stove 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. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
This tenancy ending was compressed with a new tenancy commencing later the same day.
No final inspection was conducted by the landlord or anyone else. How the new tenant received the keys was uncertain.
The landlord met the new tenant later that day. He submitted he was concerned regarding the condition of the premises and that he personally observed the new tenant undertaking significant cleaning effort. That said, no photos were taken at the time by the landlord, nor was any resolution or compensation discussed with the new tenant.
Some ten days after the new tenancy commenced, an email from the new tenant regarding the condition of the premises at the start, and the cleaning effort required was sent to Sharyn Golding. Ms Golding was described by the landlord as his letting agent but from submissions it appears her role would extend beyond that, albeit without a formal agency arrangement.
The landlord, based on photos provided by the new tenant (and her statement of tasks undertaken), and a later obtained quote (not house or task specific) for $506.00, sought $500.00 as compensation.
He stated this sum has been promised to the new tenant for her cleaning efforts – why that remains unpaid and subject to this matter concluding is not understood given her issues and experiences. Any such compensation would address any failure of the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the new tenancy (see s 45(1)(a)). Any possible recovery here should have no bearing on that.
The landlord has been unable to produce sufficient evidence to support the compensation sum as claimed (I also accept any “loss” to the landlord is yet to be incurred). Despite that, I have determined some further cleaning was more than likely required and some compensation is due. Based on the limited evidence, and submissions made, I conclude that $150.00 should be awarded from the bond to the landlord. Filing fee
I make no order regarding filing fees. Each party is to carry their respective cost. 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 not been wholly or substantially successful, no suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359634 — Cleanliness at 77 Ranch Road, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui 3116

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359634 — Cleanliness at 77 Ranch Road, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui 3116

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