What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5173611?

The tribunal order states: Joshua Michael John Richmond, Armando Shaun O'Shannessey, Finlayson

How much money was awarded in case 5173611?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5173611?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5173611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11816371-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5173611?

The tribunal order states: Joshua Michael John Richmond, Armando Shaun O'Shannessey, Finlayson

How much money was awarded in case 5173611?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5173611?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5173611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11816371-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5A Tara Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5173611 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5173611 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Net award	$100.00
Bond	$578.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

Joshua Michael John Richmond, Armando Shaun O'Shannessey, Finlayson James Smith James Smith and Sam Jackson Willems to pay Braziers Limited as agent for Golden Properties Trust $100.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $578.45 (3290685-026) immediately apportioned as follows: Braziers Limited Amanda Lawson: $100.00 Joshua Michael John Richmond, Armando Shaun O'Shannessey, Finlayson James Smith James Smith and Sam Jackson Willems: $478.45

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Joshua Richmond attended the hearing on behalf of all of the tenants.
The tenant has filed an application seeking a refund of the bond.
The landlord has applied a cross-application for compensation and a refund of the bond.
The tenancy began on 15 February 2024 and ended on 9 February 2025.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

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. 1 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v).
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. In relation to the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, the landlord highlights the following: a. There is cooked food surrounding one element on the stovetop b. The glass in the shower box is dirty c. The internal rubber of the washing machine is dirty
The landlord gave further evidence that the bathroom extractor fan, rangehood, skirting boards, light switches and internal doors were dirty.
The landlord also claims that the pipes for the washing machine were dirty. The landlord gave evidence that the new tenants complained about the fact that their clothes came out dirty after completing one washing cycle.
The landlord submitted an invoice for professional cleaning of the inside of the property for $442.75 and an invoice for the servicing of the washing machine for $135.70. The landlord seek compensation for the full amount in both invoices.
The tenant gave evidence that the stovetop, rangehood and rubber seal of the washing machine most likely required further cleaning. Otherwise, the tenant claims they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant gave evidence that they spent 2 – 3 days cleaning the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant submits it is not reasonable for the landlord to expect them to clean the pipes of the washing machine. The tenant gave evidence that they did not use the washing machine very often, preferring instead to use a nearby laundromat. 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Analysis
I have carefully considered the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. Overall, the property appears to have been left in a clean and tidy state however, I accept that the photographs show cooked food on one element of the stovetop and the glass in the shower box appears to be dirty.
By a very slim margin, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy because of the above issues.
The photographs do not show the rangehood is dirty and whilst there appears to be some grime in the rubber seal of the washing machine, I note there was no photograph of the inside of the rubber seal of the washing machine taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that the washing machine was approximately less than 5 years old and had been used by a previous tenant. The landlord gave further evidence that the pipes were most likely not cleaned at the end of the previous tenancy. In these circumstances, the level of grime in the inside of the rubber seal and pipes at the beginning of this tenancy is unknown. I am uncertain whether the substantial build up of grime or dirt in the washing machine occurred during this tenancy however, even if the landlord had proven on the balance of probabilities that it did, I would most likely find this to be fair wear and tear. No evidence was given that the tenant used the washing machine in an unreasonable way. The build up of grime in the rubber seal and pipes is most likely the result of the ordinary operation of natural forces from the washing machine being used. A tenant is not responsible for fair wear and tear. 7
I do not accept the landlord’s submission that the skirting boards, light switches and bathroom extractor fan needed to be cleaned to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The photographs do not show these areas to be particularly dirty and in any case, a tenant does not need to leave the premises in a pristine condition, only a reasonably clean and tidy one.
Overall, the photographs show the property was left in a clean and tidy state however, I accept that the stove top and shower box needed to be cleaned in order for the tenant to fulfil their obligations under section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for cleaning. The average hourly rate is approximately $50.00 per hour. I find it would most likely have taken approximately 2 hours to clean the stovetop and shower box.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for $100.00.
The amount ordered is proved. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a)(i).

FILING FEE

Both parties have been substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the cost of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5173611 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Net award	$100.00
Bond	$578.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

Joshua Michael John Richmond, Armando Shaun O'Shannessey, Finlayson James Smith James Smith and Sam Jackson Willems to pay Braziers Limited as agent for Golden Properties Trust $100.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $578.45 (3290685-026) immediately apportioned as follows: Braziers Limited Amanda Lawson: $100.00 Joshua Michael John Richmond, Armando Shaun O'Shannessey, Finlayson James Smith James Smith and Sam Jackson Willems: $478.45

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Joshua Richmond attended the hearing on behalf of all of the tenants.
The tenant has filed an application seeking a refund of the bond.
The landlord has applied a cross-application for compensation and a refund of the bond.
The tenancy began on 15 February 2024 and ended on 9 February 2025.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

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. 1 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v).
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. In relation to the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, the landlord highlights the following: a. There is cooked food surrounding one element on the stovetop b. The glass in the shower box is dirty c. The internal rubber of the washing machine is dirty
The landlord gave further evidence that the bathroom extractor fan, rangehood, skirting boards, light switches and internal doors were dirty.
The landlord also claims that the pipes for the washing machine were dirty. The landlord gave evidence that the new tenants complained about the fact that their clothes came out dirty after completing one washing cycle.
The landlord submitted an invoice for professional cleaning of the inside of the property for $442.75 and an invoice for the servicing of the washing machine for $135.70. The landlord seek compensation for the full amount in both invoices.
The tenant gave evidence that the stovetop, rangehood and rubber seal of the washing machine most likely required further cleaning. Otherwise, the tenant claims they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant gave evidence that they spent 2 – 3 days cleaning the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant submits it is not reasonable for the landlord to expect them to clean the pipes of the washing machine. The tenant gave evidence that they did not use the washing machine very often, preferring instead to use a nearby laundromat. 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Analysis
I have carefully considered the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. Overall, the property appears to have been left in a clean and tidy state however, I accept that the photographs show cooked food on one element of the stovetop and the glass in the shower box appears to be dirty.
By a very slim margin, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy because of the above issues.
The photographs do not show the rangehood is dirty and whilst there appears to be some grime in the rubber seal of the washing machine, I note there was no photograph of the inside of the rubber seal of the washing machine taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that the washing machine was approximately less than 5 years old and had been used by a previous tenant. The landlord gave further evidence that the pipes were most likely not cleaned at the end of the previous tenancy. In these circumstances, the level of grime in the inside of the rubber seal and pipes at the beginning of this tenancy is unknown. I am uncertain whether the substantial build up of grime or dirt in the washing machine occurred during this tenancy however, even if the landlord had proven on the balance of probabilities that it did, I would most likely find this to be fair wear and tear. No evidence was given that the tenant used the washing machine in an unreasonable way. The build up of grime in the rubber seal and pipes is most likely the result of the ordinary operation of natural forces from the washing machine being used. A tenant is not responsible for fair wear and tear. 7
I do not accept the landlord’s submission that the skirting boards, light switches and bathroom extractor fan needed to be cleaned to bring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The photographs do not show these areas to be particularly dirty and in any case, a tenant does not need to leave the premises in a pristine condition, only a reasonably clean and tidy one.
Overall, the photographs show the property was left in a clean and tidy state however, I accept that the stove top and shower box needed to be cleaned in order for the tenant to fulfil their obligations under section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for cleaning. The average hourly rate is approximately $50.00 per hour. I find it would most likely have taken approximately 2 hours to clean the stovetop and shower box.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for $100.00.
The amount ordered is proved. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a)(i).

FILING FEE

Both parties have been substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the cost of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5173611 — Cleanliness at 5A Tara Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5173611 — Cleanliness at 5A Tara Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions