What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4667349?

The tribunal order states: The tenants application for name suppression is dismissed. No suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4667349?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $879.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $214.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4667349?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4667349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9516278-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4667349?

The tribunal order states: The tenants application for name suppression is dismissed. No suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4667349?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $218.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $879.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $214.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4667349?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4667349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9516278-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 29 Green Lane East, Remuera, Auckland 1050, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4667349 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4667349 — net $1,470.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$214.29	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$218.50	Cleaning
Curtain cleaning	$879.75	Curtain cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$138.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,470.98
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,470.98

Order

The tenants application for name suppression is dismissed. No suppression orders apply to this decision.
Fangming (Niko) Zhou to pay Bayleys Real Estate Limited - Auckland Central As Agent For A & P O'sullivan Family Trust $1,470.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3131957-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Bayleys Real Estate Limited - Auckland Central As Agent For A & P O'sullivan Family Trust : $1,470.98 Fangming (Niko) Zhou: $1,529.02

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the landlord and tenant.
The tenant seeks a refund of her bond, whereas the landlord seeks an order that the tenant pay various costs at the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Both parties appeared at the hearing.
The tenancy agreement records the tenant as Fangming (Niko) Zhou, and the landlord “A & P O’Sullivan Family Trust” by way of a property manager, Bayleys Real Estate.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears of $214.29. The tenant agrees that she owes this amount, so it is ordered by consent.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises. For example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work.
It is also relevant to note, that the onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed. Cleaning claim
The landlord seeks costs for cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord considers the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord referred to photographs taken at the end of the tenancy alongside the pre-tenancy photographs.
The tenant says that she had arranged for someone to come to the tenancy to undertake cleaning on the day she moved out. The tenant considers that the property itself is a very mouldy property, and during her time in the tenancy she had issues with her own belongings becoming mouldy and damp. The tenant considers the landlord should compensate her for damage to her belongings. The tenant considers the landlord should have given her a further opportunity to return to undertake additional cleaning if that was needed. Analysis
I have considered the photographs taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. When I consider the photographs, I must conclude the premises were not returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean state. However the areas in which the tenancy departed from what would have been a reasonably clean state is not significant. The premises were close to being reasonably clean based on the evidence provided.
There is no evidence the premises are damp premises, the premises appear reasonably new.
I also note there is no expectation in law that a landlord would allow a tenant back into the premises to undertake further cleaning if that is needed, once possession is returned to the landlord. The obligation to return the premises reasonably clean sits with the tenant when the premises are returned.
The landlord has provided an invoice for $437.00 for 6 hours of cleaning and rubbish removal charges. Taking into account the photographs, I consider it reasonable to order the tenant to pay half the cleaning cost, that would be more commensurate with the cleaning that the photographs would have supported. Curtain cleaning
The landlord states the pre-tenancy inspection show the curtains were in good condition. At the end of the tenancy the curtains were extensively mouldy. The landlord has claims $879.75 for curtain cleaning with reference to the invoice from ‘cleaning pro’.
The tenant states that she did keep the premises ventilated. The tenant states that she did not cause the curtain mould, again stating the premises were generally mouldy. The tenant considers she needed to move out early.
In conclusion the landlord states that the tenant struggled to pay the rent, and the landlord agreed she could leave early. Analysis
I have set out the legal considerations around cleaning above, and those same principles apply to curtain cleaning.
The photographs show the curtains to be extensively mouldy at the end of the tenancy, and would be far from being reasonably clean. There is no evidence to support the curtain state to be pre-existing, I consider the curtains to have become mouldy during this tenancy. The tenant had an obligation to return the curtains reasonably clean, and she failed to do that.
The tenant stated that the pre-tenancy photographs did not show the backing of the curtains. While that may be the case, the state of the curtains at the end of the tenancy was so bad, I cannot accept that the curtains would have been like that at the start of the tenancy and not noted either in the photographs, or on the written pre-tenancy inspection report which records the state of the curtains to be “very good”.
The tenant is liable for the curtain cleaning costs.
I find the landlord has established this claim, and while it is for a large value, I accept that the cost should sit completely with the tenant. Carpet cleaning
The landlord’s final claim is for carpet cleaning to the amount of $138.00, to remove two carpet stains, with reference to the landlord photographs.
The tenant states that the carpet was not new at the start of the tenancy, and she considers the stains to arise from normal use. The tenant disputes this claim, and states her parents were living with her for a period of time, so the premises received extra cleaning.
In conclusion the landlord states the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
Taking into account the photographs, I do not consider the stains shown on those photographs would be accepted as normal ‘wear and tear’. Overall I consider the landlord has proven that the stains arose during the tenancy (I accept the carpet was in good condition in the pre-tenancy photographs). The tenant did not return the carpet in a reasonably clean state, so she must be liable for the cleaning costs incurred.
The carpet cleaning claim is modest, supported by the invoice of $138.00 and consistent with the spot treating that would reasonably have been needed to clean the two carpet stains. This is ordered.

FILING FEE

The landlord has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case only the tenant has applied for name suppression, but because she has not been successful, the application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4667349 — net $1,470.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$214.29	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$218.50	Cleaning
Curtain cleaning	$879.75	Curtain cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$138.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,470.98
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,470.98

Order

The tenants application for name suppression is dismissed. No suppression orders apply to this decision.
Fangming (Niko) Zhou to pay Bayleys Real Estate Limited - Auckland Central As Agent For A & P O'sullivan Family Trust $1,470.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3131957-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Bayleys Real Estate Limited - Auckland Central As Agent For A & P O'sullivan Family Trust : $1,470.98 Fangming (Niko) Zhou: $1,529.02

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the landlord and tenant.
The tenant seeks a refund of her bond, whereas the landlord seeks an order that the tenant pay various costs at the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Both parties appeared at the hearing.
The tenancy agreement records the tenant as Fangming (Niko) Zhou, and the landlord “A & P O’Sullivan Family Trust” by way of a property manager, Bayleys Real Estate.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord has applied for an order that the tenant pay rent arrears of $214.29. The tenant agrees that she owes this amount, so it is ordered by consent.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises. For example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work.
It is also relevant to note, that the onus for establish the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed. Cleaning claim
The landlord seeks costs for cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord considers the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord referred to photographs taken at the end of the tenancy alongside the pre-tenancy photographs.
The tenant says that she had arranged for someone to come to the tenancy to undertake cleaning on the day she moved out. The tenant considers that the property itself is a very mouldy property, and during her time in the tenancy she had issues with her own belongings becoming mouldy and damp. The tenant considers the landlord should compensate her for damage to her belongings. The tenant considers the landlord should have given her a further opportunity to return to undertake additional cleaning if that was needed. Analysis
I have considered the photographs taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. When I consider the photographs, I must conclude the premises were not returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean state. However the areas in which the tenancy departed from what would have been a reasonably clean state is not significant. The premises were close to being reasonably clean based on the evidence provided.
There is no evidence the premises are damp premises, the premises appear reasonably new.
I also note there is no expectation in law that a landlord would allow a tenant back into the premises to undertake further cleaning if that is needed, once possession is returned to the landlord. The obligation to return the premises reasonably clean sits with the tenant when the premises are returned.
The landlord has provided an invoice for $437.00 for 6 hours of cleaning and rubbish removal charges. Taking into account the photographs, I consider it reasonable to order the tenant to pay half the cleaning cost, that would be more commensurate with the cleaning that the photographs would have supported. Curtain cleaning
The landlord states the pre-tenancy inspection show the curtains were in good condition. At the end of the tenancy the curtains were extensively mouldy. The landlord has claims $879.75 for curtain cleaning with reference to the invoice from ‘cleaning pro’.
The tenant states that she did keep the premises ventilated. The tenant states that she did not cause the curtain mould, again stating the premises were generally mouldy. The tenant considers she needed to move out early.
In conclusion the landlord states that the tenant struggled to pay the rent, and the landlord agreed she could leave early. Analysis
I have set out the legal considerations around cleaning above, and those same principles apply to curtain cleaning.
The photographs show the curtains to be extensively mouldy at the end of the tenancy, and would be far from being reasonably clean. There is no evidence to support the curtain state to be pre-existing, I consider the curtains to have become mouldy during this tenancy. The tenant had an obligation to return the curtains reasonably clean, and she failed to do that.
The tenant stated that the pre-tenancy photographs did not show the backing of the curtains. While that may be the case, the state of the curtains at the end of the tenancy was so bad, I cannot accept that the curtains would have been like that at the start of the tenancy and not noted either in the photographs, or on the written pre-tenancy inspection report which records the state of the curtains to be “very good”.
The tenant is liable for the curtain cleaning costs.
I find the landlord has established this claim, and while it is for a large value, I accept that the cost should sit completely with the tenant. Carpet cleaning
The landlord’s final claim is for carpet cleaning to the amount of $138.00, to remove two carpet stains, with reference to the landlord photographs.
The tenant states that the carpet was not new at the start of the tenancy, and she considers the stains to arise from normal use. The tenant disputes this claim, and states her parents were living with her for a period of time, so the premises received extra cleaning.
In conclusion the landlord states the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy. Analysis
Taking into account the photographs, I do not consider the stains shown on those photographs would be accepted as normal ‘wear and tear’. Overall I consider the landlord has proven that the stains arose during the tenancy (I accept the carpet was in good condition in the pre-tenancy photographs). The tenant did not return the carpet in a reasonably clean state, so she must be liable for the cleaning costs incurred.
The carpet cleaning claim is modest, supported by the invoice of $138.00 and consistent with the spot treating that would reasonably have been needed to clean the two carpet stains. This is ordered.

FILING FEE

The landlord has been mostly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $20.44.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case only the tenant has applied for name suppression, but because she has not been successful, the application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4667349 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 7, 29 Green Lane East, Remuera, Auckland 1050,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4667349 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 7, 29 Green Lane East, Remuera, Auckland 1050,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions