Landlord who said vacating tenant could have cleaned house better fails to keep bond

A landlord who inherited his father's estate tried claiming some of the bond from the long-term tenant when he put the house on the market. Photo / 123rf

A man who inherited his father’s property put it on the market, and then tried to get some of the bond back from a tenant who’d lived there for almost two decades.

The woman had lived at the South Auckland address for 18 years but left when the home went up for sale, 18 months after the death of her original landlord.

She then had to fight to get her bond back, after the new landlord claimed she “could have cleaned the place better” and had left minor damage, despite it not having been redecorated the entire time she lived there.

The Tenancy Tribunal said in dismissing the landlord’s claim last month and awarding the $1050 bond to the tenant, it was “disappointing” it had taken such a long time since the end of the tenancy for the matter to be resolved, and for the bond to be returned.

“A bond is prima facie the tenant’s money, and she should have had access to it before now,” the tribunal said in a decision released last month.

Both the tenant and landlord’s names were suppressed because of the “low-level nature of the dispute” and the tribunal’s view that there was no legitimate public interest in naming either.

The landlord with whom the woman signed the tenancy agreement died in May 2020.

His son, who was the sole executor of his late father’s estate, became her new landlord.

The tenancy ended in November 2021 when the landlord put the property on the market.

He then lodged a claim with the tribunal, wanting a partial refund of the bond to the tune of $650.

He produced two invoices, including one for cleaning at $350 and the second for $300 for patch repair to two holes, including one by the front door and the other in a bedroom, but was unable to provide any photographic evidence in support of either claim.

The tenant said she cleaned the property fully when she left, that it was old and had remained in its 1970s state the entire time she lived there.

The tribunal said what amounted to “reasonably clean and tidy”, which was required by law when a tenant moved out, was of course in many ways a matter of judgment.

“People can have vastly differing standards of cleanliness and it is not the case that a tenant must leave a premise in perfect condition, only in reasonable condition,” tribunal member Jenni Smith said.

“Likewise, a tenant is not required to leave premises in such a condition that a new tenant can move in straight away, or in a condition ready for sale.”

She added that a realistic landlord’s business plan should make allowances for this.

Provided the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy, any cleaning undertaken over and above this was not the tenant’s responsibility and was part of the overall maintenance of the property.

“In this case, the tenant said she cleaned the property,” Smith said.

“The landlord accepts that the cleaning may have been done but it ‘could have been done better’ and that the real estate agent [who was marketing the property for sale] agreed.”

Accordingly, the tribunal found the landlord had not proved the claim on the balance of probabilities, and the claim was dismissed.

The landlord’s claim for damages was also dismissed, mainly because he couldn’t prove the two small holes had occurred during the tenancy.

In order to succeed in a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it was more than fair wear and tear.

He accepted that one of the holes may well have been there when the tenancy began and was unsure about the other hole, but couldn’t prove that it had occurred during the tenancy.

Because the claims failed, the tribunal ordered a refund of the bond in full to the tenant.