What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5099530?

The tribunal order states: Central West Property Management Limited As Agent For Sandra Law must

How much money was awarded in case 5099530?

Cleaning: $598.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Roller blinds x2 & ser…: $185.01 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5099530?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5099530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641589-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5099530?

The tribunal order states: Central West Property Management Limited As Agent For Sandra Law must

How much money was awarded in case 5099530?

Cleaning: $598.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Roller blinds x2 & ser…: $185.01 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5099530?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5099530?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641589-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

265 Point Chevalier Road, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5099530 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5099530 — net $810.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: House cleaning	$598.00	House cleaning
Compensation: Roller blinds x2 & service call charge	$185.01	Roller blinds x2 & service call charge
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$810.01
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$810.01

Order

Central West Property Management Limited As Agent For Sandra Law must pay Charlotte Jeanne Aitcheson, Nicholas Oliver Aitcheson $810.01 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: House cleaning $598.00 Compensation: Roller blinds x2 & service call charge $185.01 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $810.01 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $810.01

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Gontheir is the support person for the tenants.
Mr Hickey is the property manager. Ms Glucina is assisting Mr Hickey. Dispute overview
The tenancy commenced on 23 August 2024.
The tenants sought reimbursement of cleaning costs ($883) incurred because the property was allegedly unclean upon move-in. The landlord disputed the claim, arguing that the property was professionally cleaned twice before tenancy commencement. Tenants' Arguments and Submissions
The tenants raised several specific concerns about the cleanliness of the property during the hearing, supported by photographic evidence and their testimony. Photos were taken on 22 August 2024.
Kitchen Areas: a. Dead bugs and dirt in drawers and cabinets. b. Dirty toe kicks (baseboards) under kitchen cabinets, appearing either grimy or chipped. c. Dishwasher filter covered in mould, with dishes left inside from the previous tenant (noted during a prior viewing and still present at move-in).
Bathrooms: a. Dust-covered shelves in the bathroom linen cupboard. b. Dirty light switches and a broken toilet seat (repaired by the tenants at their own expense).
Blinds: a. Four bedroom blinds were heavily soiled, with some appearing to have food stains and dead insects (photos showed only two blinds initially; later supplemented with evidence for all four).
General Filth: a. Dust on light bulbs and window sills (e.g., lounge window frames). b. Mould on a power point in one of the children’s bedrooms. c. Blackened grime on bathroom switches and walls.
They argued the landlord did not “... provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness” under Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986— italic mine.
Communication Attempts: a. Ms. Aitcheson sent a text message on the evening before move-in (22 August 2024) and called the property manager at 9 AM on move-in day but received no response. They proceeded to hire their own cleaners due to urgency (three young children and needed unpacking).
Reimbursement Sought: a. Full reimbursement of $883 for two cleaning invoices (Central Cleaning Services for $598.00 and blind cleaning for $285 (including service call charge) for 4 blinds). Landlord's Arguments and Submissions
Mr. Hickey, on behalf of the landlord, disputed the tenants' claims and made the following key arguments:
Property Was Professionally Cleaned Before Tenancy a. Mr Hickey submitted that the property was cleaned twice before the tenants moved in: o 25 June 2024 (Exit clean): Conducted after the previous tenant vacated. o 15 August 2024 (Pre-tenancy clean): Done a week before the tenants moved in (23 August 2024). b. Mr. Hickey argued that the property was handed over in a "reasonably clean and tidy" state, as required by tenancy laws.
Tenants Did Not Allow Time for Landlord to Rectify Issues a. Mr Hickey acknowledged minor issues (e.g., dusty toe kicks) but claimed: o These would have been addressed if the tenants had waited for the landlord’s cleaners. o The tenants unilaterally hired their own cleaners without giving the landlord a reasonable opportunity to fix the problems. o Ms. Aitcheson sent a text on 22 August 2024 (evening before move-in) and called on 23 August, but Mr. Hickey stated he was in a meeting and missed the communication.
Dispute Over Evidence (Blinds & Photos) a. The landlord contested the tenants' claim for blind cleaning costs ($285), arguing: o The initial application only included photos of two blinds, while the invoice charged for cleaning four blinds. o Mr. Hickey questioned the validity of the additional photos provided later, stating: "We have no idea what they're for. They're just photos of blinds."
In fairness to the landlord, Mr Hickey’s submission on this point is forceful. Possible Settlement
I urged both parties to resolve the dispute because this case could be settled. I adjourned the hearing briefly so Mr. Hickey could take instructions before presenting a settlement proposal.
Upon reconvening, Mr. Hickey initially offered $500 as a goodwill gesture, citing prior concessions such as reduced rent and floor recoating. He then increased his offer to $600 after the tenants countered with $740.50, reducing the blind cleaning cost by half due to initially providing photos for only two blinds).The tenants declined the counter-offer. My view
The photos and invoices substantiate that the landlord did not provide the property in a "reasonably state of cleanliness" under Section 45(1)(a) RTA,
In my view, the word “provide” under s45(1)(a) RTA refers to the time of moving in. It does not imply or mean “after” the tenants have taken possession. This is because the tenants are legally responsible for keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy after taking possession of the property under section 40(1)(c) of the RTA.
Accordingly, I reject Mr Hickey’s submissions that the tenants should have waited for the landlord’s cleaners to clean the premises.
I am not suggesting that Mr. Hickey is at fault here because he instructed his contractor to clean the property before the tenants took possession of it.
However, based on the evidence I have observed, Mr. Hickey’s cleaner did not seem to have cleaned the property to a reasonable standard, especially considering the mould, dead bugs, and dishwasher filter. The two-month vacancy and the lack of response to the tenants' complaints further support this. Conclusion
I find that the landlord did not provide the tenants with the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Accordingly, the tenants should be reimbursed for the cleaning costs. a. Central Cleaning Services invoice for $598. b. Blind Cleaning ($185.01): This has been reduced by $99.99 because the tenants provided evidence for only two blinds. c. Total: $783.01. Filing fee
Because Charlotte Jeanne Aitcheson, Nicholas Oliver Aitcheson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5099530 — net $810.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: House cleaning	$598.00	House cleaning
Compensation: Roller blinds x2 & service call charge	$185.01	Roller blinds x2 & service call charge
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$810.01
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$810.01

Order

Central West Property Management Limited As Agent For Sandra Law must pay Charlotte Jeanne Aitcheson, Nicholas Oliver Aitcheson $810.01 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation: House cleaning $598.00 Compensation: Roller blinds x2 & service call charge $185.01 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $810.01 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $810.01

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Gontheir is the support person for the tenants.
Mr Hickey is the property manager. Ms Glucina is assisting Mr Hickey. Dispute overview
The tenancy commenced on 23 August 2024.
The tenants sought reimbursement of cleaning costs ($883) incurred because the property was allegedly unclean upon move-in. The landlord disputed the claim, arguing that the property was professionally cleaned twice before tenancy commencement. Tenants' Arguments and Submissions
The tenants raised several specific concerns about the cleanliness of the property during the hearing, supported by photographic evidence and their testimony. Photos were taken on 22 August 2024.
Kitchen Areas: a. Dead bugs and dirt in drawers and cabinets. b. Dirty toe kicks (baseboards) under kitchen cabinets, appearing either grimy or chipped. c. Dishwasher filter covered in mould, with dishes left inside from the previous tenant (noted during a prior viewing and still present at move-in).
Bathrooms: a. Dust-covered shelves in the bathroom linen cupboard. b. Dirty light switches and a broken toilet seat (repaired by the tenants at their own expense).
Blinds: a. Four bedroom blinds were heavily soiled, with some appearing to have food stains and dead insects (photos showed only two blinds initially; later supplemented with evidence for all four).
General Filth: a. Dust on light bulbs and window sills (e.g., lounge window frames). b. Mould on a power point in one of the children’s bedrooms. c. Blackened grime on bathroom switches and walls.
They argued the landlord did not “... provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness” under Section 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986— italic mine.
Communication Attempts: a. Ms. Aitcheson sent a text message on the evening before move-in (22 August 2024) and called the property manager at 9 AM on move-in day but received no response. They proceeded to hire their own cleaners due to urgency (three young children and needed unpacking).
Reimbursement Sought: a. Full reimbursement of $883 for two cleaning invoices (Central Cleaning Services for $598.00 and blind cleaning for $285 (including service call charge) for 4 blinds). Landlord's Arguments and Submissions
Mr. Hickey, on behalf of the landlord, disputed the tenants' claims and made the following key arguments:
Property Was Professionally Cleaned Before Tenancy a. Mr Hickey submitted that the property was cleaned twice before the tenants moved in: o 25 June 2024 (Exit clean): Conducted after the previous tenant vacated. o 15 August 2024 (Pre-tenancy clean): Done a week before the tenants moved in (23 August 2024). b. Mr. Hickey argued that the property was handed over in a "reasonably clean and tidy" state, as required by tenancy laws.
Tenants Did Not Allow Time for Landlord to Rectify Issues a. Mr Hickey acknowledged minor issues (e.g., dusty toe kicks) but claimed: o These would have been addressed if the tenants had waited for the landlord’s cleaners. o The tenants unilaterally hired their own cleaners without giving the landlord a reasonable opportunity to fix the problems. o Ms. Aitcheson sent a text on 22 August 2024 (evening before move-in) and called on 23 August, but Mr. Hickey stated he was in a meeting and missed the communication.
Dispute Over Evidence (Blinds & Photos) a. The landlord contested the tenants' claim for blind cleaning costs ($285), arguing: o The initial application only included photos of two blinds, while the invoice charged for cleaning four blinds. o Mr. Hickey questioned the validity of the additional photos provided later, stating: "We have no idea what they're for. They're just photos of blinds."
In fairness to the landlord, Mr Hickey’s submission on this point is forceful. Possible Settlement
I urged both parties to resolve the dispute because this case could be settled. I adjourned the hearing briefly so Mr. Hickey could take instructions before presenting a settlement proposal.
Upon reconvening, Mr. Hickey initially offered $500 as a goodwill gesture, citing prior concessions such as reduced rent and floor recoating. He then increased his offer to $600 after the tenants countered with $740.50, reducing the blind cleaning cost by half due to initially providing photos for only two blinds).The tenants declined the counter-offer. My view
The photos and invoices substantiate that the landlord did not provide the property in a "reasonably state of cleanliness" under Section 45(1)(a) RTA,
In my view, the word “provide” under s45(1)(a) RTA refers to the time of moving in. It does not imply or mean “after” the tenants have taken possession. This is because the tenants are legally responsible for keeping the premises reasonably clean and tidy after taking possession of the property under section 40(1)(c) of the RTA.
Accordingly, I reject Mr Hickey’s submissions that the tenants should have waited for the landlord’s cleaners to clean the premises.
I am not suggesting that Mr. Hickey is at fault here because he instructed his contractor to clean the property before the tenants took possession of it.
However, based on the evidence I have observed, Mr. Hickey’s cleaner did not seem to have cleaned the property to a reasonable standard, especially considering the mould, dead bugs, and dishwasher filter. The two-month vacancy and the lack of response to the tenants' complaints further support this. Conclusion
I find that the landlord did not provide the tenants with the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
Accordingly, the tenants should be reimbursed for the cleaning costs. a. Central Cleaning Services invoice for $598. b. Blind Cleaning ($185.01): This has been reduced by $99.99 because the tenants provided evidence for only two blinds. c. Total: $783.01. Filing fee
Because Charlotte Jeanne Aitcheson, Nicholas Oliver Aitcheson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5099530 — Cleanliness at 265 Point Chevalier Road, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5099530 — Cleanliness at 265 Point Chevalier Road, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022

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