What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710252?

The tribunal order states: Tracey Goodman is to pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Kim &

How much money was awarded in case 4710252?

Cleaning: $416.59 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710252?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9779383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4710252?

The tribunal order states: Tracey Goodman is to pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Kim &

How much money was awarded in case 4710252?

Cleaning: $416.59 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4710252?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4710252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9779383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

434A Kahikatea Drive, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4710252 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4710252. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed		$416.59	2. The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed
Bond	$2,120.00

Tracey Goodman is to pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Kim & Clint Moran $230.00 from the bond for rubbish removal.

The landlord’s claim for cleaning ($416.59) is dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (3480738-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Kim & Clint Moran: $230.00 Tracey Goodman: $1,890.00

Reasons

The hearing was held by teleconference on 6 December 2023. Both parties attended the hearing.

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

In general, the onus or burden of proving a particular claim, rests with the party who is making that claim (in this case, the landlord). The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party proving the claim must establish with evidence that their claim is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not” correct.

Although I have considered all the parties’ evidence and submissions, I have only referenced what I find necessary to give context to my decision.

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

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.

The landlord claims $416.59 for cleaning to remove grease and fly dirt. The invoice from Specialist Cleaning Services describes the work carried out: “Interior House Tenant Exit clean, to remove fly poop off ceilings throughout, clean walls and skirtings in dining, tow lunge (sic) rooms, bedrooms, hallway, all wet rooms, clean fronts of kitchen cabinets”. The landlord relied on the ingoing and outgoing property inspection reports including photographs.

In terms of the claim for cleaning, the words ‘reasonably clean and reasonably tidy’ do not impose an absolute standard. This standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances, or the outside of a house. It is common that a landlord may wish to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

This claim must be seen in the overall context of the cleanliness and tidiness of the premises at the end of the tenancy. I am mindful of the obligation of the tenant to undertake cleaning to a reasonable standard only, as opposed to a professional standard. From my assessment of the photos and the outgoing inspection report, the majority of the premises was left reasonably clean and tidy. I do not consider that the tenant is liable for cleaning fly spots on the ceilings. Although clearly some matters needed addressing, they appeared to be matters that are best addressed with a “commercial clean” rather than a tenant’s effort. It is of course not unusual for a landlord to occasionally arrange a commercial clean, irrespective of the tenant’s efforts, as part of normal property maintenance following a 4 year tenancy. The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.

The landlord claims $230.00 for rubbish removal and relies on the invoice from Stevo’s Lawns, the ingoing and outgoing property inspection reports and photographs. The tenant disputes the claim stating that some of the rubbish did not belong to them and was there at the start of the tenancy. This was denied by the landlord who relied on the ingoing property inspection report which did not record any pre-existing rubbish left at the property. On balance, the Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence. The landlord’s claimed for $230.00 is awarded. Filing fee

As the landlord has not been wholly successful with the application, I decline to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4710252. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed		$416.59	2. The landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed
Bond	$2,120.00

Order

Tracey Goodman is to pay Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Kim & Clint Moran $230.00 from the bond for rubbish removal.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning ($416.59) is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 (3480738-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Lodge City Rentals Limited As Agent For Kim & Clint Moran: $230.00 Tracey Goodman: $1,890.00

Reasons

The hearing was held by teleconference on 6 December 2023. Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In general, the onus or burden of proving a particular claim, rests with the party who is making that claim (in this case, the landlord). The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party proving the claim must establish with evidence that their claim is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not” correct.
Although I have considered all the parties’ evidence and submissions, I have only referenced what I find necessary to give context to my decision.

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

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.
The landlord claims $416.59 for cleaning to remove grease and fly dirt. The invoice from Specialist Cleaning Services describes the work carried out: “Interior House Tenant Exit clean, to remove fly poop off ceilings throughout, clean walls and skirtings in dining, tow lunge (sic) rooms, bedrooms, hallway, all wet rooms, clean fronts of kitchen cabinets”. The landlord relied on the ingoing and outgoing property inspection reports including photographs.
In terms of the claim for cleaning, the words ‘reasonably clean and reasonably tidy’ do not impose an absolute standard. This standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances, or the outside of a house. It is common that a landlord may wish to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
This claim must be seen in the overall context of the cleanliness and tidiness of the premises at the end of the tenancy. I am mindful of the obligation of the tenant to undertake cleaning to a reasonable standard only, as opposed to a professional standard. From my assessment of the photos and the outgoing inspection report, the majority of the premises was left reasonably clean and tidy. I do not consider that the tenant is liable for cleaning fly spots on the ceilings. Although clearly some matters needed addressing, they appeared to be matters that are best addressed with a “commercial clean” rather than a tenant’s effort. It is of course not unusual for a landlord to occasionally arrange a commercial clean, irrespective of the tenant’s efforts, as part of normal property maintenance following a 4 year tenancy. The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.
The landlord claims $230.00 for rubbish removal and relies on the invoice from Stevo’s Lawns, the ingoing and outgoing property inspection reports and photographs. The tenant disputes the claim stating that some of the rubbish did not belong to them and was there at the start of the tenancy. This was denied by the landlord who relied on the ingoing property inspection report which did not record any pre-existing rubbish left at the property. On balance, the Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence. The landlord’s claimed for $230.00 is awarded. Filing fee
As the landlord has not been wholly successful with the application, I decline to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710252 — Cleanliness at 434A Kahikatea Drive, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4710252 — Cleanliness at 434A Kahikatea Drive, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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