How much money was awarded in case 5451029?

Cleaning: $454.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451029?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529835-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5451029?

Cleaning: $454.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451029?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13529835-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5451029 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5451029 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Landlord] name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $0.00 Michelle Mary-Louise Turner: $2,800.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for the cost of cleaning and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Burden of proof

Before I go on to consider the claim, I begin by noting that the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations as to the burden of proof. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more probable than not.

This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and reports and photographs can 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, 1 in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike 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.

Where a party asserts a defence in reply, it is also incumbent on them generally to produce some form of evidence corroborating their evidence. This is particularly so in cases where there is a direct conflict of evidence. Relevant Background

The tenant has two cats. One is low shedding cat. The other is a ragdoll. She had permission to have these pets at the outset of the tenancy. There is no issue with that.

The landlord is claiming that at the end of the tenancy, there were yellowish stains, consistent with cat urine, and that other arears of the tenancy were not left reasonably clean and tidy.

Photographs of the premises at the outset of the tenancy were provided to me as well as photographs taken at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant suggested these photographs may not have been accurately dated but I have nothing before me which corroborates that.

The tenant strongly maintains that the stains were not there, and that she thoroughly cleaned the premises before handing possession back to the landlord. 1 Kaipo v Clarke DC Waitakere TT 233/02, 12 April 2002, at [7].

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.

At the end of the day, I must determine the case applying the law and the required consideration as to whether the landlord has proven their claim on the balance of probabilities.

Having reviewed the evidence carefully, I am of the view the landlord has proven their claim. Nothing I have seen corroborates the tenant’s evidence that the premises were not left in the condition as described by the landlord. In order words, the premises were not left clean enough to the required standard and further cleaning was required.

The cleaning invoice itself is relatively modest in my view.

The tenant claimed that when she moved in the premises were not then clean and tidy, but she produced no evidence corroborating or proving that.

The amount ordered above is proven.

As the landlord has succeeded, it is entitled to name suppression and return of the filing fee.

Order