What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473959 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (BN11128999) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5473959?

Rubbish Removal: $822.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473959?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14161176-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5473959 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (BN11128999) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5473959?

Rubbish Removal: $822.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5473959?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5473959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14161176-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8B Korimako Street, Selwyn Heights, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5473959 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5473959 — net $822.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$822.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$822.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$822.00

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams by telephone.

Barry Jansen attended the hearing for the landlord.

The tenant attended for herself.

The landlord has applied for compensation, payment out of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant applies for return of the bond.

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean or remove all rubbish.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1

“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, commercially clean, or hotel standard. Even where the tenant leaves the premises reasonably clean, the landlord may still have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.

It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness do not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall. A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy.

The onus for establishing the claim sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord does not have entry photographs for the tenancy because it began more than 25 years ago. Although, the photographs in the exit condition report show some isolated areas of cleaning which could be improved upon I am not satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean overall bearing in mind there is no evidence of the state of cleanliness of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. Therefore, the claim for cleaning expenses is dismissed.

The tenant accepts she left behind some items. It was dark when she left so she may have missed some items. She had arranged for a friend to uplift some furniture items, 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e). but they failed to do so. There was some firewood which she gifted to a neighbour, but the wood remained on the premises, so the landlord had it removed. I am not persuaded that all the claimed cost of rubbish removal should be borne by the tenant, however. I consider 50 percent of amount claimed fairly reflects the amount of rubbish that can be attributed to the tenant.

Therefore, I order $822.00 in favour of the landlord, which is to be paid out from the bond.

The balance of the bond is to be returned to the tenant.

The tenant mentioned she left behind improvements to the premises for which she has not been compensated. She had evidently had a discussion with Mr Jansen about that previously. The tenant and Mr Jansen are at liberty to continue that discussion, but it was not the subject of the claims before me, so I make no order about the issue.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5473959 — net $822.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$822.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$822.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$822.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (BN11128999) immediately apportioned as follows: Russell Hardie Limited as agent for Save The Bunnies Limited: $822.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,178.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams by telephone.
Barry Jansen attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant attended for herself.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment out of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applies for return of the bond.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean or remove all rubbish.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, commercially clean, or hotel standard. Even where the tenant leaves the premises reasonably clean, the landlord may still have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness do not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall. A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy.
The onus for establishing the claim sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord does not have entry photographs for the tenancy because it began more than 25 years ago. Although, the photographs in the exit condition report show some isolated areas of cleaning which could be improved upon I am not satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean overall bearing in mind there is no evidence of the state of cleanliness of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. Therefore, the claim for cleaning expenses is dismissed.
The tenant accepts she left behind some items. It was dark when she left so she may have missed some items. She had arranged for a friend to uplift some furniture items, 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e). but they failed to do so. There was some firewood which she gifted to a neighbour, but the wood remained on the premises, so the landlord had it removed. I am not persuaded that all the claimed cost of rubbish removal should be borne by the tenant, however. I consider 50 percent of amount claimed fairly reflects the amount of rubbish that can be attributed to the tenant.
Therefore, I order $822.00 in favour of the landlord, which is to be paid out from the bond.
The balance of the bond is to be returned to the tenant.
The tenant mentioned she left behind improvements to the premises for which she has not been compensated. She had evidently had a discussion with Mr Jansen about that previously. The tenant and Mr Jansen are at liberty to continue that discussion, but it was not the subject of the claims before me, so I make no order about the issue.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473959 — Tenancy dispute at 8B Korimako Street, Selwyn Heights, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5473959 — Tenancy dispute at 8B Korimako Street, Selwyn Heights, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.