Tenant Ordered to Pay Cleaning Costs at End of Tenancy

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5173611 1

[2025] NZTT 5173611, 5189232

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Tenant

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Landlord

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. [NAME] and [NAME] to pay [COMPANY] as agent for [COMPANY] $100.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Description Landlord Tenant Cleaning $100.00 Total award $100.00 Bond $100.00 $478.45

2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $578.45 (3290685-026) immediately apportioned as follows:

[COMPANY] [NAME]: $100.00

[NAME] and [NAME]:

$478.45

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5173611 2

Reasons:

1. The landlord attended the hearing. [NAME] attended the hearing on behalf of all of the tenants.

2. The tenant has filed an application seeking a refund of the bond.

3. The landlord has applied a cross-application for compensation and a refund of the bond.

4. The tenancy began on 15 February 2024 and ended on 9 February 2025.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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).

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5173611 3

9. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable.2 It does not mean commercially clean,3 spotless4 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

10. 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

11. The landlord gave further evidence that the bathroom extractor fan, rangehood, skirting boards, light switches and internal doors were dirty.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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].

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5173611 4

Analysis

16. 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.

17. By a very slim margin, I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy because of the above issues.

18. 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 [NAME]. The landlord gave further evidence that the pipes were most likely not cleaned at the end of the [NAME] 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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for $100.00.

23. The amount ordered is proved.

7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a)(i).

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5173611 5

FILING FEE

24. 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.

[NAME]

08 May 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5173611 6

Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.

Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.

You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf

Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals

Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.

Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].

Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5173611 7

A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].

Reasons: