What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4779639?

The tribunal order states: Jeremy Vincent Lake must pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4779639?

Cleaning: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4779639?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4779639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10164750-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4779639?

The tribunal order states: Jeremy Vincent Lake must pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4779639?

Cleaning: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4779639?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4779639?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10164750-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

237 Coutts Street, Rongotai, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4779639 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4779639 — net $465.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears-one day owed	$90.00	Rent arrears-one day owed
Cleaning	$375.00	Cleaning
Net award	$465.00
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$465.00

Order

Jeremy Vincent Lake must pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited $465.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (3179348-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Powell & Co Property Management Limited : $465.00 Jeremy Vincent Lake: $1,615.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Bossom representing the landlord.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond following the tenancy ending and exemplary damages from the landlord for failing to maintain the premises. He also disputes the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs and one day’s rent arrears at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim. However, the tenant is aware of the landlord’s claims and consents to the claims being determined today. Therefore, I have considered the landlord’s claims.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant gave notice to end the tenancy on 16 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove one days’ rent owing at the end of the tenancy.
Two weeks prior to the tenancy ending the tenant sent the landlord a text which said; “...just verifying that my rent is paid two weeks ahead and so the last payment should be the one that went out today.” He says that the landlord did not respond to the text to let him know that another days rent was payable. Therefore, he understood all rent had been paid. He also noted that he vacated the property sooner on 14 November so shouldn’t be required to pay rent up to 16 November.
Section 51(2B) RTA provides that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 28 days’ notice. Section 51(3) then sets out the requirements for the notice which include that it must be in writing and must specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises. Rent is then payable to that date.
Given the legal requirements, I am satisfied that the landlord is entitled to charge rent for the last day of the tenancy, 16 November, as this was the day specified by the tenant as the last day 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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant's obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
The landlord claims $718, being the costs incurred to clean the kitchen only. The landlord confirmed at the hearing that they were only seeking cleaning costs for the kitchen and no other areas of the premises. They provided a copy of their work order which instructed the cleaning company to: “Please carry out a full clean including oven and stove in the kitchen toilet area.” An itemised cleaning invoice was not provided, and the landlord advised that they had been unable to obtain an itemised invoice from their cleaning contractors despite asking for one.
The tenant accepts that some cleaning was required of the oven but otherwise claims that the kitchen was reasonably clean and tidy. He also alleges that builders must have been at the property and either repaired or replaced the cat flap in the kitchen leaving sawdust on the floor and he should not be responsible for the cleaning required as a result. He says that “before and after” photos show that the cat flap looked different in support of his allegation. He also submits that the amount charged for cleaning the kitchen is exorbitant and notes that the cleaner has not provided an itemised invoice setting out the areas cleaned, the time taken, the hourly rate applied and any other disbursements charged. He suspects the price charged was for a full house clean.
The landlord denies that any building work was carried out at the premises in the kitchen area prior to the cleaning and I am not persuaded that photos of the cat flap show that it has been repaired or replaced. I accept the landlord’s advice in that regard.
After carefully considering the photo evidence supplied by both parties and their oral submissions and evidence, I find that the tenant did not leave the kitchen area reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. I consider that several areas including the oven, floors, inside cupboards, windows and sills were not left reasonably clean.
The issue to determine is whether the amount charged for cleaning the kitchen is reasonable and only covers the kitchen, given that the cleaning invoice is not itemised to show exactly what was cleaned and how the charges were calculated. While Ms Bossom produced a copy of the work order, I am not persuaded that the wording of the order would necessarily be interpreted as an instruction to only clean the kitchen because it refers to “a full clean including oven and stove in the kitchen toilet area” . It would be clearer had the instruction been to complete “a full clean of the kitchen toilet area, including the oven and stove.” However, Ms Bossom was adamant that other cleaning was not undertaken because areas of the house were to be renovated which would render the cleaning redundant. However, the work order does refer to the toilet area which Ms Bossom said was not being claimed. Assuming the toilet area was cleaned the invoice would need to be reduced to take that into account.
I accept that in the absence of an itemised invoice, it is difficult to be sure what cleaning work was covered by the invoice. Ms Bossom suggested that there were difficulties communicating with the cleaners for whom English is a second language. This makes it all the more important that there be an itemised invoice.
After reviewing the photos and bearing in mind the range of cleaning amounts charged and awarded in this Tribunal, I assess that the cleaning invoice should be reduced to $375.
The amount ordered is proved. The tenant claims Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA which requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises in several respects as follows: a. Failure to fix a faulty stove; b. Failure to fix a broken shower mixer handle; c. Failure to fix a melting power socket outlet; d. Failure to install a smoke alarm in an appropriate place; e. Failure to address mould.
The tenant says that he raised these issues orally with the landlords when they carried out quarterly inspections. However, the landlord denies this is the case and the tenant was unable to provide any evidence that he notified the landlord of his complaints in writing, such as by text or email or by sending photos to the landlord showing the problems.
The landlord was able to provide evidence that the stove had been repaired in July 2020; repairs were done to the shower mixer in August 2019, and an independent Smoke Alarm testing company had checked and certified that compliant smoke alarms were present. They say that the tenant did not inform them of any other issues or of any recurring problems subsequent to the repairs.
Each party has the burden to prove their claims. The standard of proof required is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities.” Put another way, the tenant must persuade me (in relation to his claims) that what he says is more likely than not to be the case. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than not. In deciding any particular claim I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral testimony). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Where there is a dispute about the facts, the evidential onus may require that some supporting evidence be produced to corroborate the claim.
I find that there is no evidence to establish that the tenant notified the landlord of the various repair issues he has now raised in his claim. A landlord cannot be held liable for a failure to repair an issue they do not know about. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlord failed to maintain the premises. That does not mean the tenant is necessarily wrong in bringing the claims, but simply that there is not enough evidence before me to prove them. For those reasons, the tenant’s claims are dismissed.
As the tenant has not substantially succeeded with his claims, I do not order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4779639 — net $465.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears-one day owed	$90.00	Rent arrears-one day owed
Cleaning	$375.00	Cleaning
Net award	$465.00
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$465.00

Order

Jeremy Vincent Lake must pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited $465.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (3179348-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Powell & Co Property Management Limited : $465.00 Jeremy Vincent Lake: $1,615.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Bossom representing the landlord.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond following the tenancy ending and exemplary damages from the landlord for failing to maintain the premises. He also disputes the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs and one day’s rent arrears at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. The landlord has not filed a counterclaim. However, the tenant is aware of the landlord’s claims and consents to the claims being determined today. Therefore, I have considered the landlord’s claims.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and refund of the bond, following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant gave notice to end the tenancy on 16 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove one days’ rent owing at the end of the tenancy.
Two weeks prior to the tenancy ending the tenant sent the landlord a text which said; “...just verifying that my rent is paid two weeks ahead and so the last payment should be the one that went out today.” He says that the landlord did not respond to the text to let him know that another days rent was payable. Therefore, he understood all rent had been paid. He also noted that he vacated the property sooner on 14 November so shouldn’t be required to pay rent up to 16 November.
Section 51(2B) RTA provides that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 28 days’ notice. Section 51(3) then sets out the requirements for the notice which include that it must be in writing and must specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises. Rent is then payable to that date.
Given the legal requirements, I am satisfied that the landlord is entitled to charge rent for the last day of the tenancy, 16 November, as this was the day specified by the tenant as the last day 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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant's obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
The landlord claims $718, being the costs incurred to clean the kitchen only. The landlord confirmed at the hearing that they were only seeking cleaning costs for the kitchen and no other areas of the premises. They provided a copy of their work order which instructed the cleaning company to: “Please carry out a full clean including oven and stove in the kitchen toilet area.” An itemised cleaning invoice was not provided, and the landlord advised that they had been unable to obtain an itemised invoice from their cleaning contractors despite asking for one.
The tenant accepts that some cleaning was required of the oven but otherwise claims that the kitchen was reasonably clean and tidy. He also alleges that builders must have been at the property and either repaired or replaced the cat flap in the kitchen leaving sawdust on the floor and he should not be responsible for the cleaning required as a result. He says that “before and after” photos show that the cat flap looked different in support of his allegation. He also submits that the amount charged for cleaning the kitchen is exorbitant and notes that the cleaner has not provided an itemised invoice setting out the areas cleaned, the time taken, the hourly rate applied and any other disbursements charged. He suspects the price charged was for a full house clean.
The landlord denies that any building work was carried out at the premises in the kitchen area prior to the cleaning and I am not persuaded that photos of the cat flap show that it has been repaired or replaced. I accept the landlord’s advice in that regard.
After carefully considering the photo evidence supplied by both parties and their oral submissions and evidence, I find that the tenant did not leave the kitchen area reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. I consider that several areas including the oven, floors, inside cupboards, windows and sills were not left reasonably clean.
The issue to determine is whether the amount charged for cleaning the kitchen is reasonable and only covers the kitchen, given that the cleaning invoice is not itemised to show exactly what was cleaned and how the charges were calculated. While Ms Bossom produced a copy of the work order, I am not persuaded that the wording of the order would necessarily be interpreted as an instruction to only clean the kitchen because it refers to “a full clean including oven and stove in the kitchen toilet area” . It would be clearer had the instruction been to complete “a full clean of the kitchen toilet area, including the oven and stove.” However, Ms Bossom was adamant that other cleaning was not undertaken because areas of the house were to be renovated which would render the cleaning redundant. However, the work order does refer to the toilet area which Ms Bossom said was not being claimed. Assuming the toilet area was cleaned the invoice would need to be reduced to take that into account.
I accept that in the absence of an itemised invoice, it is difficult to be sure what cleaning work was covered by the invoice. Ms Bossom suggested that there were difficulties communicating with the cleaners for whom English is a second language. This makes it all the more important that there be an itemised invoice.
After reviewing the photos and bearing in mind the range of cleaning amounts charged and awarded in this Tribunal, I assess that the cleaning invoice should be reduced to $375.
The amount ordered is proved. The tenant claims Did the landlord fail to maintain the premises
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 RTA which requires a landlord to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises in several respects as follows: a. Failure to fix a faulty stove; b. Failure to fix a broken shower mixer handle; c. Failure to fix a melting power socket outlet; d. Failure to install a smoke alarm in an appropriate place; e. Failure to address mould.
The tenant says that he raised these issues orally with the landlords when they carried out quarterly inspections. However, the landlord denies this is the case and the tenant was unable to provide any evidence that he notified the landlord of his complaints in writing, such as by text or email or by sending photos to the landlord showing the problems.
The landlord was able to provide evidence that the stove had been repaired in July 2020; repairs were done to the shower mixer in August 2019, and an independent Smoke Alarm testing company had checked and certified that compliant smoke alarms were present. They say that the tenant did not inform them of any other issues or of any recurring problems subsequent to the repairs.
Each party has the burden to prove their claims. The standard of proof required is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities.” Put another way, the tenant must persuade me (in relation to his claims) that what he says is more likely than not to be the case. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than not. In deciding any particular claim I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral testimony). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Where there is a dispute about the facts, the evidential onus may require that some supporting evidence be produced to corroborate the claim.
I find that there is no evidence to establish that the tenant notified the landlord of the various repair issues he has now raised in his claim. A landlord cannot be held liable for a failure to repair an issue they do not know about. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlord failed to maintain the premises. That does not mean the tenant is necessarily wrong in bringing the claims, but simply that there is not enough evidence before me to prove them. For those reasons, the tenant’s claims are dismissed.
As the tenant has not substantially succeeded with his claims, I do not order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4779639 — Cleanliness at 237 Coutts Street, Rongotai, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4779639 — Cleanliness at 237 Coutts Street, Rongotai, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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