What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5092168?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 (3337852-019) to Melanie Rex

How much money was awarded in case 5092168?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5092168?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5092168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11514906-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5092168?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 (3337852-019) to Melanie Rex

How much money was awarded in case 5092168?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5092168?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5092168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11514906-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

106B Firth Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5092168 — Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 (3337852-019) to Melanie Rex - as agent for NZ.CO LTD immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the phone hearing. A call to the tenant’s last known mobile number went unanswered.
The landlord has applied for refund of the bond as compensation for costs incurred cleaning and removing rubbish from the premises following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy
The premises is a one-bedroom unit. The tenancy commenced on 10 December 2021 and ended on 21 November 2022.
The landlord says they attempted to resolve the claims for compensation directly with the tenant in the months after the tenancy ended but were unable to.
Work was carried out to remove rubbish and clean the premises shortly after the tenant vacated and the premises were re-rented in December 2022 or January 2023. Some of the exterior remedial work, including the gardens, was completed after new tenants had moved in. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

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.
I am satisfied the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord produced photographs taken in the week after the tenancy ended which show a large amount of debris and rubbish was left in both the exterior and interior of the property.
The landlord has provided a quote from a contractor that estimates a total of $2,500 to remove all rubbish from the garden and house, dispose of it, and carry out remedial work (cleaning, painting of an interior wall and landscaping the garden). All tasks are itemised in the quote.
The landlord says the work was carried out, as per the quote, in December 2022 and January 2023 but the landlord does not have a copy of the final invoice. The landlord says they wish to claim only the bond, $1,240.00 in compensation.
I am satisfied that the amount claimed, being $1,240.00 in compensation is reasonable considering the state the premises was left it. I would not have awarded the full amount of $2,500 without evidence of the final invoice provided by the contractor. I note there was not sufficient evidence of the interior mural which was said to require repainting, nor sufficient evidence that the carpet required professional cleaning.
I accept that the quote is reasonable in respect of the removal of exterior rubbish ($375) and interior rubbish ($375), and reinstating landscaping ($450). I also accept that the house would have required cleaning, although there was insufficient evidence that the carpets required cleaning. I would have awarded $200 for cleaning of the interior of the property. I therefore would have awarded $1,400 in compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal but note the landlord’s claim is limited to the amount held as bond, being $1,240.00.
The RTA does not provide a specific time limit to a landlord bringing a claim for damages against a tenant, however, they should do so within a reasonable timeframe after the tenancy ends. The tenancy ended on 21 November 2022. The landlord filed their claim on 2 December 2024. The claim is brought some two years since the cost were incurred.
The claim has been brought at what I would consider the end of what could be seen as a reasonable period for the amount sought. The landlord acknowledged she could have brought the claim earlier and apologised for leaving it so long.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 (3337852-019) to Melanie Rex - as agent for NZ.CO LTD immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the phone hearing. A call to the tenant’s last known mobile number went unanswered.
The landlord has applied for refund of the bond as compensation for costs incurred cleaning and removing rubbish from the premises following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy
The premises is a one-bedroom unit. The tenancy commenced on 10 December 2021 and ended on 21 November 2022.
The landlord says they attempted to resolve the claims for compensation directly with the tenant in the months after the tenancy ended but were unable to.
Work was carried out to remove rubbish and clean the premises shortly after the tenant vacated and the premises were re-rented in December 2022 or January 2023. Some of the exterior remedial work, including the gardens, was completed after new tenants had moved in. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

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.
I am satisfied the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord produced photographs taken in the week after the tenancy ended which show a large amount of debris and rubbish was left in both the exterior and interior of the property.
The landlord has provided a quote from a contractor that estimates a total of $2,500 to remove all rubbish from the garden and house, dispose of it, and carry out remedial work (cleaning, painting of an interior wall and landscaping the garden). All tasks are itemised in the quote.
The landlord says the work was carried out, as per the quote, in December 2022 and January 2023 but the landlord does not have a copy of the final invoice. The landlord says they wish to claim only the bond, $1,240.00 in compensation.
I am satisfied that the amount claimed, being $1,240.00 in compensation is reasonable considering the state the premises was left it. I would not have awarded the full amount of $2,500 without evidence of the final invoice provided by the contractor. I note there was not sufficient evidence of the interior mural which was said to require repainting, nor sufficient evidence that the carpet required professional cleaning.
I accept that the quote is reasonable in respect of the removal of exterior rubbish ($375) and interior rubbish ($375), and reinstating landscaping ($450). I also accept that the house would have required cleaning, although there was insufficient evidence that the carpets required cleaning. I would have awarded $200 for cleaning of the interior of the property. I therefore would have awarded $1,400 in compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal but note the landlord’s claim is limited to the amount held as bond, being $1,240.00.
The RTA does not provide a specific time limit to a landlord bringing a claim for damages against a tenant, however, they should do so within a reasonable timeframe after the tenancy ends. The tenancy ended on 21 November 2022. The landlord filed their claim on 2 December 2024. The claim is brought some two years since the cost were incurred.
The claim has been brought at what I would consider the end of what could be seen as a reasonable period for the amount sought. The landlord acknowledged she could have brought the claim earlier and apologised for leaving it so long.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5092168 — Cleanliness at 106B Firth Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5092168 — Cleanliness at 106B Firth Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Claims & awards

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

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