What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724559?

The tribunal order states: Paul Nicol is to pay Parkinfoote Ventures Limited $425.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4724559?

Cleaning: $425.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724559?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10648292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4724559?

The tribunal order states: Paul Nicol is to pay Parkinfoote Ventures Limited $425.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4724559?

Cleaning: $425.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4724559?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4724559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10648292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 60 Verbena Road, Birkdale, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4724559 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4724559 — net $425.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$425.00	Cleaning
Net award	$425.00
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$425.00

Order

Paul Nicol is to pay Parkinfoote Ventures Limited $425.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5859800-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Parkinfoote Ventures Limited: $425.00 Paul Nicol: $775.00

Reasons

Ms Foote attended the hearing for the landlord by MS Teams Audio Link. Mr Nicol, the tenant, attended the hearing by teleconference.
This dispute relates to a tenancy which started on 18 September 2020 and ended on 26 September 2023. 4724559, 47624182
The tenant has filed a claim for refund of the bond and disputes the claim the landlord has against the bond.
The landlord has filed a cross application for compensation for cleaning ($1,026.38) following the end of the tenancy.
As noted above, the tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant. The test of reasonableness is an objective one. In other words, the question is whether an average reasonable bystander would consider the premises to be reasonably clean and tidy. The onus is on the landlord, to prove with evidence provided to the Tribunal, that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord says the tenant left the premises in a poor state. They initially received an estimated quote of $480.00 plus GST of which they were prepared to pay but due to the state of the property it ended up costing much more ($1,026.38). The landlord relied on a quote, invoice and statement from Affordable Clean Team Ltd, and photographs of the condition of the premises at the end of tenancy.
By email dated 7 November 2023 to the landlord, Mr Parkinson of Affordable Clean Team stated: The clients contacted us for a move out clean and we provided a quote for a standard 3 bedroom house clean. This usually takes our team of 3 cleaners around 2-3 hours if the property has been left in a reasonably clean condition. When we inspected the property together with the landlord, it was clear that the quoted amount was not going to be sufficient to bring the property up to an acceptable standard for another tenant to move in. The kitchen was very greasy and all of the cupboards and drawers needed cleaning inside and out. Several cupboards and drawers had household items that needed to be removed before cleaning. The oven, splash back and surrouding areas needed extensive cleaning. The whole house needed all surfaces to be cleaned as there was fly dirt, dust and cobwebs on walls and window frames etc. The clean took a whole day for our three people team, which was much longer than expected for a change in tenancy clean.
The tenant disputes the landlord's claim and evidence. He believes he left the property clean, vacuumed and floors steam moped and sanitised. He considers the assertions made were factually incorrect, and not evidenced by the two 4724559, 47624183 friends who came around to help him with the final load of his stuff. The tenant provided statements from the two friends who helped him move out on the day who both confirmed that they had observed the property was left in a clean condition. He also noted the recycling bin was left empty and that he only left one council bin with food/kitchen waste in it which he left a number of paid tags to cover this.
I note the statement produced by the cleaner engaged by the landlord stated “When we inspected the property together with the landlord, it was clear that the quoted amount was not going to be sufficient to bring the property up to an acceptable standard for another tenant to move in”. However, this is not the legal test. As noted above, the tenant is only required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes 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.
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 consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord produced close up photographs highlighting various cleaning issues with regard to the kitchen cupboards, drawers, pantry, walls and splash back, window sills, backdoor, hall cupboard, and oven. The landlord also provided photographs of various items needing to be removed and disposed of before cleaning.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that cleaning was done prior to vacating the premises, but the photographs presented by the landlord show that there were some areas missed or overlooked and were required to bring it up to a “reasonably clean” standard. Although clearly some issues appeared 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. The claim for cleaning is partly awarded. The Tribunal considers $425.00 reasonable and consistent with the tenant's legal obligations and the photographic evidence produced by the landlord. 4724559, 47624184 Filing fee and suppression order
I make no order for the filing fee as both parties have enjoyed a degree of success.
Section 95A RTA provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord did not seek a suppression order in their application.
The tenant requested a suppression order in his application. The tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in his application. In the absence of any sufficient grounds, he is not entitled to a suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4724559 — net $425.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$425.00	Cleaning
Net award	$425.00
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$425.00

Order

Paul Nicol is to pay Parkinfoote Ventures Limited $425.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (5859800-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Parkinfoote Ventures Limited: $425.00 Paul Nicol: $775.00

Reasons

Ms Foote attended the hearing for the landlord by MS Teams Audio Link. Mr Nicol, the tenant, attended the hearing by teleconference.
This dispute relates to a tenancy which started on 18 September 2020 and ended on 26 September 2023. 4724559, 47624182
The tenant has filed a claim for refund of the bond and disputes the claim the landlord has against the bond.
The landlord has filed a cross application for compensation for cleaning ($1,026.38) following the end of the tenancy.
As noted above, the tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant. The test of reasonableness is an objective one. In other words, the question is whether an average reasonable bystander would consider the premises to be reasonably clean and tidy. The onus is on the landlord, to prove with evidence provided to the Tribunal, that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord says the tenant left the premises in a poor state. They initially received an estimated quote of $480.00 plus GST of which they were prepared to pay but due to the state of the property it ended up costing much more ($1,026.38). The landlord relied on a quote, invoice and statement from Affordable Clean Team Ltd, and photographs of the condition of the premises at the end of tenancy.
By email dated 7 November 2023 to the landlord, Mr Parkinson of Affordable Clean Team stated: The clients contacted us for a move out clean and we provided a quote for a standard 3 bedroom house clean. This usually takes our team of 3 cleaners around 2-3 hours if the property has been left in a reasonably clean condition. When we inspected the property together with the landlord, it was clear that the quoted amount was not going to be sufficient to bring the property up to an acceptable standard for another tenant to move in. The kitchen was very greasy and all of the cupboards and drawers needed cleaning inside and out. Several cupboards and drawers had household items that needed to be removed before cleaning. The oven, splash back and surrouding areas needed extensive cleaning. The whole house needed all surfaces to be cleaned as there was fly dirt, dust and cobwebs on walls and window frames etc. The clean took a whole day for our three people team, which was much longer than expected for a change in tenancy clean.
The tenant disputes the landlord's claim and evidence. He believes he left the property clean, vacuumed and floors steam moped and sanitised. He considers the assertions made were factually incorrect, and not evidenced by the two 4724559, 47624183 friends who came around to help him with the final load of his stuff. The tenant provided statements from the two friends who helped him move out on the day who both confirmed that they had observed the property was left in a clean condition. He also noted the recycling bin was left empty and that he only left one council bin with food/kitchen waste in it which he left a number of paid tags to cover this.
I note the statement produced by the cleaner engaged by the landlord stated “When we inspected the property together with the landlord, it was clear that the quoted amount was not going to be sufficient to bring the property up to an acceptable standard for another tenant to move in”. However, this is not the legal test. As noted above, the tenant is only required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes 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.
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 consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord produced close up photographs highlighting various cleaning issues with regard to the kitchen cupboards, drawers, pantry, walls and splash back, window sills, backdoor, hall cupboard, and oven. The landlord also provided photographs of various items needing to be removed and disposed of before cleaning.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that cleaning was done prior to vacating the premises, but the photographs presented by the landlord show that there were some areas missed or overlooked and were required to bring it up to a “reasonably clean” standard. Although clearly some issues appeared 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. The claim for cleaning is partly awarded. The Tribunal considers $425.00 reasonable and consistent with the tenant's legal obligations and the photographic evidence produced by the landlord. 4724559, 47624184 Filing fee and suppression order
I make no order for the filing fee as both parties have enjoyed a degree of success.
Section 95A RTA provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord did not seek a suppression order in their application.
The tenant requested a suppression order in his application. The tenant was not wholly or substantially successful in his application. In the absence of any sufficient grounds, he is not entitled to a suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724559 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 60 Verbena Road, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4724559 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 60 Verbena Road, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions