What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5229891?

The tribunal order states: Jioi Tuilovoni and Taubale Tuilovoni to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5229891?

Water Rates: $10.13 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229891?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12068666-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5229891?

The tribunal order states: Jioi Tuilovoni and Taubale Tuilovoni to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5229891?

Water Rates: $10.13 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229891?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12068666-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

70 Wyllie Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229891 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229891 — net $787.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Water rates	$10.13	By consent: Water rates
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$787.13
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$787.13

Order

Jioi Tuilovoni and Taubale Tuilovoni to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For So Kheng Lim & Fastco Trustees Limited $787.13 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (3161937-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For So Kheng Lim & Fastco Trustees Limited: $787.13 Jioi Tuilovoni and Taubale Tuilovoni: $1,932.87

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for outstanding water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord 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.

WATER RATES

The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim for $10.13 for outstanding water rates. CLEANING & CARPET CLEANING The law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 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]. 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 Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Cleaning: $1,242.00 b. Carpet cleaning: $563.50
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which they say prove the tenant made very little effort to properly clean the premises. The landlord highlights marks on the light switches and doors, as well as dust on the skirting boards and debris on the carpet. The landlord claims the floors were not vacuumed properly and the bathroom was not cleaned. The landlord also claims the carpets were heavily stained.
The landlord did not submit photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, as they took over management of the tenancy part way through and do not have access to these photographs.
The landlord has had the premises cleaned at a cost of $2,070.00 and submitted an invoice for this amount. The landlord seeks compensation of $1,242.00 towards this cost.
The landlord has also had the carpet professionally cleaned at a cost of $563.50 and submitted an invoice for this amount. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims they cleaned the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant gave evidence that they have lived in the premises for approximately 8 years and there has never been any issues brought to their attention regarding cleanliness during inspections. The tenant claims the marks on the walls and ceiling is mildew, which they complained about a number of times.
The tenant claims the carpet is old and any stains are fair wear and tear. 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
On the basis of the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Debris is present on the floors and I agree with the landlord’s submission that they do not appear to have been vacuumed properly. Further, there is hair in the sink and bath in the bathroom. The cupboards and drawers in the bathroom vanity have not been cleaned and one drawer in particular is very dirty.
The tenant accepts that some of the stains on the carpet occurred during the tenancy. The landlord does not have photographs of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy and therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that all of the stains on the carpet occurred during the tenancy and are the fault of the tenant.
The landlord claims the walls needed cleaning due to a build up of dirt and grime. The tenant claims the discolouration is mildew, which they complained about during the tenancy. From the photographs alone, it is not easy to discern the cause of the marks and discolouration to the walls. The landlord does not have photographs of the premises from the beginning of the tenancy and therefore, I am unable to compare the state of the walls at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
Considering these factors and the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, I find it was reasonable for the landlord to have the premises professionally cleaned, including the carpet however, the general cleaning costs in this case are very high being $2,070.00. The landlord’s claim of $1,242.00 towards this overall cost is also high.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for cleaning. The average hourly rate is $50.00 per hour. I find it would have taken no longer than a maximum of 7 hours to clean the premises and return them to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for $400.00. In settling on this figure, I have multiplied $50.00 by 7 hours and added another $50.00 for travel costs, which brings the total to $400.00.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is granted for $350.00. In settling on this figure, I have considered the comments made by the carpet cleaner in their invoice that the carpets were heavily soiled, as well as the fact that the landlord has not proven that all of the stains occurred during the course of this tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

FILING FEE

Because Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For So Kheng Lim & Fastco Trustees Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229891 — net $787.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Water rates	$10.13	By consent: Water rates
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$787.13
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$787.13

Order

Jioi Tuilovoni and Taubale Tuilovoni to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For So Kheng Lim & Fastco Trustees Limited $787.13 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (3161937-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For So Kheng Lim & Fastco Trustees Limited: $787.13 Jioi Tuilovoni and Taubale Tuilovoni: $1,932.87

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for outstanding water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord 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.

WATER RATES

The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim for $10.13 for outstanding water rates. CLEANING & CARPET CLEANING The law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 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]. 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 Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Cleaning: $1,242.00 b. Carpet cleaning: $563.50
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which they say prove the tenant made very little effort to properly clean the premises. The landlord highlights marks on the light switches and doors, as well as dust on the skirting boards and debris on the carpet. The landlord claims the floors were not vacuumed properly and the bathroom was not cleaned. The landlord also claims the carpets were heavily stained.
The landlord did not submit photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, as they took over management of the tenancy part way through and do not have access to these photographs.
The landlord has had the premises cleaned at a cost of $2,070.00 and submitted an invoice for this amount. The landlord seeks compensation of $1,242.00 towards this cost.
The landlord has also had the carpet professionally cleaned at a cost of $563.50 and submitted an invoice for this amount. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant claims they cleaned the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant gave evidence that they have lived in the premises for approximately 8 years and there has never been any issues brought to their attention regarding cleanliness during inspections. The tenant claims the marks on the walls and ceiling is mildew, which they complained about a number of times.
The tenant claims the carpet is old and any stains are fair wear and tear. 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
On the basis of the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Debris is present on the floors and I agree with the landlord’s submission that they do not appear to have been vacuumed properly. Further, there is hair in the sink and bath in the bathroom. The cupboards and drawers in the bathroom vanity have not been cleaned and one drawer in particular is very dirty.
The tenant accepts that some of the stains on the carpet occurred during the tenancy. The landlord does not have photographs of the premises taken at the beginning of the tenancy and therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that all of the stains on the carpet occurred during the tenancy and are the fault of the tenant.
The landlord claims the walls needed cleaning due to a build up of dirt and grime. The tenant claims the discolouration is mildew, which they complained about during the tenancy. From the photographs alone, it is not easy to discern the cause of the marks and discolouration to the walls. The landlord does not have photographs of the premises from the beginning of the tenancy and therefore, I am unable to compare the state of the walls at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
Considering these factors and the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, I find it was reasonable for the landlord to have the premises professionally cleaned, including the carpet however, the general cleaning costs in this case are very high being $2,070.00. The landlord’s claim of $1,242.00 towards this overall cost is also high.
The Tribunal sees numerous applications for compensation for cleaning. The average hourly rate is $50.00 per hour. I find it would have taken no longer than a maximum of 7 hours to clean the premises and return them to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for $400.00. In settling on this figure, I have multiplied $50.00 by 7 hours and added another $50.00 for travel costs, which brings the total to $400.00.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is granted for $350.00. In settling on this figure, I have considered the comments made by the carpet cleaner in their invoice that the carpets were heavily soiled, as well as the fact that the landlord has not proven that all of the stains occurred during the course of this tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

FILING FEE

Because Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For So Kheng Lim & Fastco Trustees Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229891 — Cleanliness at 70 Wyllie Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229891 — Cleanliness at 70 Wyllie Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

WATER RATES

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

WATER RATES

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions