What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4588771?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4588771?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $244.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4588771?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4588771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9217016-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4588771?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4588771?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $244.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4588771?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4588771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9217016-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Shamrock Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4588771 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4588771 — net $364.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$244.29	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$100.00	ired to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I order the tenant to pay $100.00 towards the cleaning costs.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$364.73
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$364.73

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Patricia Watkins and Adam Maddaford to pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Daravanh Philavong $364.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6181075-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Daravanh Philavong: $364.73 Patricia Watkins and Adam Maddaford: $1,835.27

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.

A telephone call to the tenant Adam Maddaford on the number provided at the allocated hearing time could not be connected. The Tenant Patricia Watkins was able to be contacted. She said that it was likely that Adam Maddaford was in an area without mobile coverage and that she would represent him.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy ended on 21 May 2023. The tenant accepted that there was rent owing, but that the increase in rent from $550.00 to $570.00 per week shown in the rent summary for the rent period ending 18 May 2023 was not correct. There was no evidence to support the claim for $20.00 and that part of the landlord claim is dismissed. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $244.29.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).

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 emphasis is mine)

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, and in particular 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).

Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.

The landlord has provided photos of the premises after the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice for $235.00 from a cleaner. The landlord said that the premises had been relet to new tenants at the end of this tenancy. No further cleaning was carried out between the tenancies. As indicated above, the landlord seems to have mistaken the standard of cleanliness required of the tenant at the end of the tenancy. It is not a standard that would be acceptable for a new tenant. The evidence proffered does suggest that some cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I order the tenant to pay $100.00 towards the cleaning costs.

The tenant raised concerns about the legitimacy of the cleaning invoice. No supporting evidence was provided by the tenant and I accept that the invoice was legitimate.

As Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Daravanh Philavong has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4588771 — net $364.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$244.29	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$100.00	ired to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I order the tenant to pay $100.00 towards the cleaning costs.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$364.73
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$364.73

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Patricia Watkins and Adam Maddaford to pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Daravanh Philavong $364.73 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6181075-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Daravanh Philavong: $364.73 Patricia Watkins and Adam Maddaford: $1,835.27

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.
A telephone call to the tenant Adam Maddaford on the number provided at the allocated hearing time could not be connected. The Tenant Patricia Watkins was able to be contacted. She said that it was likely that Adam Maddaford was in an area without mobile coverage and that she would represent him.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy ended on 21 May 2023. The tenant accepted that there was rent owing, but that the increase in rent from $550.00 to $570.00 per week shown in the rent summary for the rent period ending 18 May 2023 was not correct. There was no evidence to support the claim for $20.00 and that part of the landlord claim is dismissed. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $244.29.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
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 emphasis is mine)
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, and in particular 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).
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.
The landlord has provided photos of the premises after the end of the tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice for $235.00 from a cleaner. The landlord said that the premises had been relet to new tenants at the end of this tenancy. No further cleaning was carried out between the tenancies. As indicated above, the landlord seems to have mistaken the standard of cleanliness required of the tenant at the end of the tenancy. It is not a standard that would be acceptable for a new tenant. The evidence proffered does suggest that some cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. I order the tenant to pay $100.00 towards the cleaning costs.
The tenant raised concerns about the legitimacy of the cleaning invoice. No supporting evidence was provided by the tenant and I accept that the invoice was legitimate.
As Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Daravanh Philavong has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4588771 — Rent arrears at 16 Shamrock Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4588771 — Rent arrears at 16 Shamrock Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent ?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent ?

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