What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421947?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Wilson and Alastair Wilson must pay Harcourts Gold Property

How much money was awarded in case 5421947?

Cleaning: $285.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $243.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421947?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421947?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13123303-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5421947?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Wilson and Alastair Wilson must pay Harcourts Gold Property

How much money was awarded in case 5421947?

Cleaning: $285.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $243.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421947?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421947?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13123303-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

96 Leistrella Road, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421947 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421947 — net $557.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Clean oil stain from driveway (consent	$285.50	Clean oil stain from driveway (consent
Cleaning (reduced	$243.80	Cleaning (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$557.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$557.30

Mr Christiansen and Ms Mills represented the landlord. The tenant Ms Wilson advised she was unable to attend. She provided written submissions that I have considered.

The landlord has applied for cleaning costs (interior cleaning and the removal of an oil stain from the driveway) and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants have applied for the bond and for a refund of the professional carpet cleaning they had done.

The landlord’s representatives advised me that the Bond Centre has paid the bond to the tenants in full, apparently in error. The landlord’s application

Ms Wilson has confirmed that the tenants accept the landlord’s claim for the cost of removing an oil stain from the driveway. I have allowed that claim by consent.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy (in addition to other responsibilities not relevant here) 1 .

The landlord sent the tenants a cleaning checklist setting out the matters it believed required attention.

Claims for cleaning are not decided on the subjective opinion of the parties. The Tribunal views the evidence objectively.

Here, the Tribunal has the benefit of photographic evidence as well as entry and exit inspection reports. The evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that some additional cleaning was required so that the premises were left reasonably clean. But the statutory requirement is no greater than that. Premises do not have to be left clean to a ‘motel’ standard. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.

The invoice for the cleaning costs lacks any narration. The cleaners simply record 8 hours cleaning.

I find that compensation equivalent to 4 hours cleaning would be appropriate here to meet the standard imposed on the tenants. The photographic evidence does not support a claim for 8 hours’ cleaning.

I therefore award the landlord 50% of the claimed cost – $243.80. The tenants’ application

The Bond Centre had paid the bond to the tenants. That part of their application is moot.

They seek a refund of $200.00 which they paid for carpet cleaning. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)

The tenants rely on a ‘Tenant Guide for Final Inspection’ the landlord provided which states: Carpets to be vacuumed and if there are any marks then they will need to be professionally cleaned

Based on that the tenants had the carpets cleaned.

Mr Christiansen said that the carpets were not noted to require cleaning at the vacate inspection (probably because they had already been cleaned) nor had the tenants been asked to have the carpets professionally cleaned.

There is no basis for the Tribunal to order the landlord to refund the tenants the carpet cleaning cost. It was their decision to have the carpets cleaned. The evidence does not establish that they were required to do that.

I dismiss the tenants’ application. Result

The tenants will pay the landlord $557.30, $285.50 of which is by consent. This includes reimbursement of the filing fee the landlord paid. As the tenant’s application is not successful, they must bear the cost of the filing fee on their application. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as their application is unsuccessful and their defence to the landlord’s application is only partly successful. 2

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421947 — net $557.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Clean oil stain from driveway (consent	$285.50	Clean oil stain from driveway (consent
Cleaning (reduced	$243.80	Cleaning (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$557.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$557.30

Order

Rachel Wilson and Alastair Wilson must pay Harcourts Gold Property Management Limited as agent for Lynn & Steve Lewis $557.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Christiansen and Ms Mills represented the landlord. The tenant Ms Wilson advised she was unable to attend. She provided written submissions that I have considered.
The landlord has applied for cleaning costs (interior cleaning and the removal of an oil stain from the driveway) and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for the bond and for a refund of the professional carpet cleaning they had done.
The landlord’s representatives advised me that the Bond Centre has paid the bond to the tenants in full, apparently in error. The landlord’s application
Ms Wilson has confirmed that the tenants accept the landlord’s claim for the cost of removing an oil stain from the driveway. I have allowed that claim by consent.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy (in addition to other responsibilities not relevant here) 1 .
The landlord sent the tenants a cleaning checklist setting out the matters it believed required attention.
Claims for cleaning are not decided on the subjective opinion of the parties. The Tribunal views the evidence objectively.
Here, the Tribunal has the benefit of photographic evidence as well as entry and exit inspection reports. The evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that some additional cleaning was required so that the premises were left reasonably clean. But the statutory requirement is no greater than that. Premises do not have to be left clean to a ‘motel’ standard. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning between tenancies.
The invoice for the cleaning costs lacks any narration. The cleaners simply record 8 hours cleaning.
I find that compensation equivalent to 4 hours cleaning would be appropriate here to meet the standard imposed on the tenants. The photographic evidence does not support a claim for 8 hours’ cleaning.
I therefore award the landlord 50% of the claimed cost – $243.80. The tenants’ application
The Bond Centre had paid the bond to the tenants. That part of their application is moot.
They seek a refund of $200.00 which they paid for carpet cleaning. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
The tenants rely on a ‘Tenant Guide for Final Inspection’ the landlord provided which states: Carpets to be vacuumed and if there are any marks then they will need to be professionally cleaned
Based on that the tenants had the carpets cleaned.
Mr Christiansen said that the carpets were not noted to require cleaning at the vacate inspection (probably because they had already been cleaned) nor had the tenants been asked to have the carpets professionally cleaned.
There is no basis for the Tribunal to order the landlord to refund the tenants the carpet cleaning cost. It was their decision to have the carpets cleaned. The evidence does not establish that they were required to do that.
I dismiss the tenants’ application. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $557.30, $285.50 of which is by consent. This includes reimbursement of the filing fee the landlord paid. As the tenant’s application is not successful, they must bear the cost of the filing fee on their application. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as their application is unsuccessful and their defence to the landlord’s application is only partly successful. 2

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421947 — Cleanliness at 96 Leistrella Road, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421947 — Cleanliness at 96 Leistrella Road, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025

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