What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4657609?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4657609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4657609?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4657609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9888844-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4657609?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4657609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4657609?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4657609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9888844-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Antrim Glade, Welcome Bay, RD 5, Tauranga 3175 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4657609 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The landlord claimed the cost to clean 2 glass showers at the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy began on 15 December 2018 ending on 11 August 2023. The premises were 6 months old when the tenancy began.

At the end of the tenancy final inspection the property manager said that the level of cleanliness of the glass shower doors in the bathrooms was not acceptable. The condition of the shower was never bought up during inspections over a 4-year period and no 14 day notices were issued in regard to this.

A tenant is responsible upon termination of the tenancy for leaving the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. See section 4(1)(c ) of the Residential Tenancy Act 1986. The landlord claims that this section has been breached by the tenant.

The landlord instructed cleaners to reclean the glass doors and presented the invoice to the tenants for payment.

The invoice from Halley Cleaning, dated 30 August 2023, was for $423.25 and stated that it was for cleaning the shower glass in the ensuite and main bedroom for ‘water marks and splashes of thick scum on the outside of both shower glass.’

The landlord provided photos of the shower glass at the end of the tenancy, and after it had been cleaned by Halley cleaning showing a vast improvement.

The property manager who appeared at the Tribunal had not seen the doors and was not manager of the tenancy. The property manager who performed the final inspection has since left the company.

The tenants questioned the account providing a copy of their own cleaning invoice and an email from the owner of the cleaning company they used dated 24 January 2024.Mr Fank Redmond stated that in his opinion, the marks on the glass doors were caused by hard water in Tauranga and required descaling. This was a cleaning service over and above the normal cleaning and was expensive. He believed that the doors were not sealed and so very hard to keep clean and that it was wear and tear.

The tenants claimed that the doors had been cleaned by them and again by Mr Redmond, this rendered them reasonably clean that water marks were a maintenance issue which is the landlord’s responsibility.

Fair wear is the exception to tenant liability: section 49A(2). Fair wear and tear have been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.

The landlord claimed that the marks on the glass doors were both soap scum and water marks as per their cleaning invoice. The property manager said the owner was happy to pay half the account in acknowledgement of this.

The tenants said after two cleanings, and a cost of $900.00 they believed that the had met the standard of reasonably clean.

Under section 49B (8)(a)(i), the onus is on the landlord to establish that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. I find that water marks caused by hard water and normal use by the tenants, to the level that descaling is required, is a maintenance issue.

The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the marks on the shower were soap scum, or water marks that could be expected to be the tenant’s responsibility to descale at the end of the tenancy.

The claim is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The landlord claimed the cost to clean 2 glass showers at the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 15 December 2018 ending on 11 August 2023. The premises were 6 months old when the tenancy began.
At the end of the tenancy final inspection the property manager said that the level of cleanliness of the glass shower doors in the bathrooms was not acceptable. The condition of the shower was never bought up during inspections over a 4-year period and no 14 day notices were issued in regard to this.
A tenant is responsible upon termination of the tenancy for leaving the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. See section 4(1)(c ) of the Residential Tenancy Act 1986. The landlord claims that this section has been breached by the tenant.
The landlord instructed cleaners to reclean the glass doors and presented the invoice to the tenants for payment.
The invoice from Halley Cleaning, dated 30 August 2023, was for $423.25 and stated that it was for cleaning the shower glass in the ensuite and main bedroom for ‘water marks and splashes of thick scum on the outside of both shower glass.’
The landlord provided photos of the shower glass at the end of the tenancy, and after it had been cleaned by Halley cleaning showing a vast improvement.
The property manager who appeared at the Tribunal had not seen the doors and was not manager of the tenancy. The property manager who performed the final inspection has since left the company.
The tenants questioned the account providing a copy of their own cleaning invoice and an email from the owner of the cleaning company they used dated 24 January 2024.Mr Fank Redmond stated that in his opinion, the marks on the glass doors were caused by hard water in Tauranga and required descaling. This was a cleaning service over and above the normal cleaning and was expensive. He believed that the doors were not sealed and so very hard to keep clean and that it was wear and tear.
The tenants claimed that the doors had been cleaned by them and again by Mr Redmond, this rendered them reasonably clean that water marks were a maintenance issue which is the landlord’s responsibility.
Fair wear is the exception to tenant liability: section 49A(2). Fair wear and tear have been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
The landlord claimed that the marks on the glass doors were both soap scum and water marks as per their cleaning invoice. The property manager said the owner was happy to pay half the account in acknowledgement of this.
The tenants said after two cleanings, and a cost of $900.00 they believed that the had met the standard of reasonably clean.
Under section 49B (8)(a)(i), the onus is on the landlord to establish that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. I find that water marks caused by hard water and normal use by the tenants, to the level that descaling is required, is a maintenance issue.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the marks on the shower were soap scum, or water marks that could be expected to be the tenant’s responsibility to descale at the end of the tenancy.
The claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4657609 — 14-day notice at 5 Antrim Glade, Welcome Bay, RD 5, Tauranga 3175

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4657609 — 14-day notice at 5 Antrim Glade, Welcome Bay, RD 5, Tauranga 3175

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions