Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4767803 — Cleanliness at 64 Tovey Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061
Decided 23 Feb 2024 · Published 23 Feb 2024 · Application 4767803
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
Order
- David and Bronwyne Rankin to pay Jason and Crystal Dodd $390.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- Jason and Crystal Dodd’s claims for three gas bottle refills, window cleaning, carpet cleaning and replacement of an irrigation timer are dismissed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 (5840757-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Jason Dodd and Crystal Dodd: $390.00 David Rankin and Bronwyne Rankin: $1,260.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- Mr Dodd attended by teleconference.
- The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
- The tenant acknowledged that they may have missed some higher shelves and the photos provided by the landlord indicate that the tenant may have missed some other areas.
- The amount claimed was $200 which also included painting of a smoke damaged ceiling in the living room. The damage from the wood burner is fair wear and tear and that part of the claim is dismissed.
- The amount of $100 for the cleaning of overlooked areas is proven.
- The landlord provided photographs to show that the garden was not left reasonably tidy.
- The tenant explained that it was a large garden and that the photos were taken in areas that were not reasonably considered a priority.
- Nevertheless, I consider that the photos provided show that the garden was not left in a reasonably tidy state and find the amount claimed, $150, reasonable in these circumstances.
- That amount is proved.
- The landlord left a stocked woodshed at the beginning of the tenancy and the parties agreed that any wood used would be restocked at the conclusion of the tenancy. The landlord provided information for the tenant as to sources of firewood.
- The tenant left some pinecones but did not leave the shed stocked with firewood as agreed.
- The amount claimed for firewood, being $140.00 is proved.
- The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: one irrigation timer that had been fitted to an exterior tap.
- The landlord made a claim for an irrigation timer that was missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant explained that the timer had worn out and been disposed of.
- The tenant gave evidence that they had not used the timer, but it had simply deteriorated due to the outdoor conditions during the course of their four-year tenancy.
- Although the tenant should have advised the landlord of this at the time, I find that the irrigation timer, more likely than not, deteriorated due to fair wear and tear and this claim is dismissed.
- The landlord also claimed for the cost of refilling two gas bottles that had been left for the tenant’s use and were full at the beginning of the tenancy.
- There was some lengthy discussion at the hearing about issues around the gas bottles.
- It seems that the landlord had left the bottles at the property and had asked that the tenant’s take over his gas account rather than create a new account in their own names as would be usual.
- The landlord had done this in the mistaken belief that he was saving the tenants from having to hire the gas bottles themselves.
- However, it is the landlord’s responsibility to have gas bottles available for tenant’s use at a rental property and the normal course of events would have been to have a final reading for the owner prior to the tenant moving in with the owner account being closed and a new account for gas use being opened by the tenant.
- Prior to the end of this tenancy, the tenant asked the gas company to do a final top-up of the bottles as required by their tenancy agreement. This top up was completed and paid for by the tenant.
- What happened next is not entirely clear despite the landlord having made enquiries through the Utilities Disputes Service.
- One argument, with some supporting evidence, is that the gas company considered the sharing of the account with the tenant a breach of the landlord’s agreement and removed the bottles and closed the account as a consequence.
- A number of emails from the gas company state that the account was misused and, consequently, had two separate customer details recorded against it so had to be closed for privacy reasons. The gas company did not know who the “owner” of the account now was and had to close it rather than risk divulging the private information of one customer to another (including credit card numbers). From the perspective of the gas company this is understandable.
- Another suggestion is that the tenants owed money to the gas company and the bottles were taken without any refund as a consequence of that. There is no evidence to support that whereas there is evidence that the tenant requested a top-up at the end of the tenancy and paid for that.
- Either way, the reason for the removal of the gas bottles is not something I can determine on the evidence before me and nor am I required to. The landlord’s claim is for the cost of refilling the bottles and it is clear that the tenants did arrange a top-up at the end of the tenancy and did pay for that as required by their agreement.
- The confusion has come as a consequence of the landlord not closing their account at the beginning of the tenancy and, no matter how well intentioned that may have been, the tenant cannot be liable for any flow on costs from that landlord decision.
- The claim for the cost of gas refill of two gas bottles is dismissed.
- The landlord also claimed for window cleaning and carpet cleaning following the end of the tenancy.
- The photographs provided by the landlord to show that the windows were not reasonably clean seem to show salt spray or other environmental debris. Cleaning the outside of the house is the landlord’s responsibility.
- The tenants gave evidence that they had the outside windows cleaned periodically throughout the tenancy and that they had cleaned the inside windows prior to vacating.
- The tenancy agreement required the tenants to have the carpets professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. Although many tenancy agreements request this, it is not a requirement of the Act. The tenant is required to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. Although landlords may prefer to have the house cleaned to a professional standard, that is neither reasonable nor required by the Act.
- In this case, however, the tenant provided evidence that they had hired a rug doctor for four hours at the end of the tenancy. They said that they used that machine on all carpeted areas of the house.
- The claims for window cleaning and carpet cleaning are dismissed.
- The landlord raised an additional claim prior to the hearing in relation to another (smaller) gas bottle.
- There was a suggestion that this small gas bottle had been switched by the tenant for another inferior version after the tenancy had ended. There was no convincing evidence provided for this and the tenant had a reasonable explanation for being on the premises on the occasion in question. The claim relating to the small gas bottle is dismissed. Suppression and filing fees
- As both parties have had some success, the application fees fall where they lie.
- The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful so the application for name suppression is not granted.