What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5447091 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] and [The party] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Grey

How much money was awarded in case 5447091?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5447091?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5447091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13797248-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5447091 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] and [The party] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Grey

How much money was awarded in case 5447091?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5447091?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5447091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13797248-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17G Scanlan Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5447091 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5447091 — net $248.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: water damage to wooden flooring	$220.00	Cleaning: water damage to wooden flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$248.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$248.00

Order

[The party] and [The party] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Grey Lynn As Agent For Douglas Gray $248.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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. The tenants are required to replace worn out smoke alarm 5447091 2 batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks compensation for the $365.00 it spent getting the premise spot cleaned in areas it did not consider at a standard that matched the standard the tenants received the property in and not in a standard that it could relet the property in.
The landlord provided photographs to support this claim that showed some minor spots on the floor behind appliances, beneath the filters on the extractor fan in the kitchen and in the pull out area beneath the fan, areas in the oven and on the oven tray where beaked on debris had not been fully removed when the oven was cleaned by the tenants, dust on the controls of an appliance and black marks on the wooden floor from a pot plant that had been over watered and caused damage to the wooden floor boards.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy1: The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy2:The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenants.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The tenants provided photographs of the day they had finished cleaning after they had moved all their belongings out of the premise. The photographs show the premise was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759. https://anzlaw.thomsonreuters.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1993594887&pubNum=0000999&originatingDoc=Ide3f670e11d311ea8c50c7a8655a0ef5&refType=AA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink) https://anzlaw.thomsonreuters.com/Link/Document/FullText?refType=N2&serNum=1945500090&pubNum=0005691&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink) 5447091 3
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claim, except for the cleaning costs for the black marks on the floor. This is because the landlord tried to clean the black marks off, thinking they may be surface level marks. They were in fact a lot deeper and required the floorboards to be replaced. The costs associated with remedying this damage was covered by the tenants’ bond. However, the initial cleaning of these floorboards is an additional cost from the landlord’s attempt to try and mitigate the need to replace these boards.
The tenants have provided evidence which disproves liability for the $145.00 general spot cleaning costs, but not for the $220.00 cost for cleaning the damaged floorboards. I do not find the tenants liable for the $145.00 general spot cleaning cost as the evidence proves the premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited Grey Lynn As Agent For Douglas Gray has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5447091 — net $248.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: water damage to wooden flooring	$220.00	Cleaning: water damage to wooden flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$248.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$248.00

Order

[The party] and [The party] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Grey Lynn As Agent For Douglas Gray $248.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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. The tenants are required to replace worn out smoke alarm 5447091 2 batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks compensation for the $365.00 it spent getting the premise spot cleaned in areas it did not consider at a standard that matched the standard the tenants received the property in and not in a standard that it could relet the property in.
The landlord provided photographs to support this claim that showed some minor spots on the floor behind appliances, beneath the filters on the extractor fan in the kitchen and in the pull out area beneath the fan, areas in the oven and on the oven tray where beaked on debris had not been fully removed when the oven was cleaned by the tenants, dust on the controls of an appliance and black marks on the wooden floor from a pot plant that had been over watered and caused damage to the wooden floor boards.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy1: The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy2:The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenants.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The tenants provided photographs of the day they had finished cleaning after they had moved all their belongings out of the premise. The photographs show the premise was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759. https://anzlaw.thomsonreuters.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1993594887&pubNum=0000999&originatingDoc=Ide3f670e11d311ea8c50c7a8655a0ef5&refType=AA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink) https://anzlaw.thomsonreuters.com/Link/Document/FullText?refType=N2&serNum=1945500090&pubNum=0005691&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink) 5447091 3
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claim, except for the cleaning costs for the black marks on the floor. This is because the landlord tried to clean the black marks off, thinking they may be surface level marks. They were in fact a lot deeper and required the floorboards to be replaced. The costs associated with remedying this damage was covered by the tenants’ bond. However, the initial cleaning of these floorboards is an additional cost from the landlord’s attempt to try and mitigate the need to replace these boards.
The tenants have provided evidence which disproves liability for the $145.00 general spot cleaning costs, but not for the $220.00 cost for cleaning the damaged floorboards. I do not find the tenants liable for the $145.00 general spot cleaning cost as the evidence proves the premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited Grey Lynn As Agent For Douglas Gray has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5447091 — Cleanliness at 17G Scanlan Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5447091 — Cleanliness at 17G Scanlan Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions