What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5033297 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5033297?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Rent Overpaid By Tenan…: $1,092.85 awarded to tenant; 1 Door Paint: $60.00 awarded to landlord; External Fibrolite Walls: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door In Bedroom: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5033297?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5033297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12073572-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5033297 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5033297?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,200.00 awarded to tenant; Reimbursement Rent Overpaid By Tenan…: $1,092.85 awarded to tenant; 1 Door Paint: $60.00 awarded to landlord; External Fibrolite Walls: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Sliding Door In Bedroom: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5033297?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5033297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12073572-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Great South Road, Ohaupo, Ohaupo 3803 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5033297 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5033297 — net $667.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish	$2,000.00		Rubbish
Firepit clean	$200.00		Firepit clean
Repairs: 1 Door paint	$60.00		Repairs: 1 Door paint
Repairs: External fibrolite Walls	$150.00		Repairs: External fibrolite Walls
Repairs: sliding door in bedroom	$150.00		Repairs: sliding door in bedroom
Cleaning	$1,400.00		Cleaning
Reimbursement rent overpaid by tenant		$1,092.85	Reimbursement rent overpaid by tenant
Exemplary damages breach Section 45		$2,200.00	Exemplary damages breach Section 45
Total award	$3,960.00	$3,292.85
Net award	$667.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$667.15

Both parties attended the hearing. This matter was part heard on 27 March 2025 and the balance of claims on 24 June 2025.

The landlord has applied for compensation and the tenant has filed a cross application for compensation, damages and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. Both parties sought , and reimbursement of the filing fee

The premises are a 12-bedroom property with 4 bathrooms, 2 kitchens one kitchenette and 2 lounges. The landlord said that it had a firewall so could operate as two dwellings.

Both parties confirmed that the tenant rented the entire premises and ran it as one tenancy with not all the bedrooms rented out.

The tenant said that it was not a boarding house, he was a head tenant and had flatmates.

The parties had also discussed the tenant buying the premises and the tenant was paying the landlord money weekly to build up a deposit for the purchase of the premises. The amount deposited ranged from $350.00 payments which appeared regularly, to 2 deposits of $1600.00.

The parties said that this was not a rent to buy arrangement. The tenant would need to raise a mortgage and the landlord was providing a service to help the tenant save for the deposit.

The tenancy ended when the landlord issued a tenant a notice giving 90 days’ notice to vacate because he was intending on selling the premises. See section 51(2)(a) RTA.A copy of this notice was provided. The bond

The refund of the bond was sought. It was agreed by the parties that the tenant had never paid the bond to the landlord, but they believed that a bond of $2000.00 was lodged by a previous tenant and the landlord was happy to transfer this to the current tenancy.

The bond centre holds no bond in relation to this address. No proof was given of a bond paid by the tenant or received by the landlord in relation to this tenancy. The claim for the bond is dismissed. Rent.

The tenancy ended on 5 October 2025 having been extended a few days from 2 October 2025. The parties initially agreed with the amount owing and no claim was made. They agreed that the rent owing was to be taken from the funds held by the landlord accumulating for the deposit for the proposed purchase.

The tenant raised that there was an extra payment of $850.00 claimed by the landlord from the held funds on 10 October 2024 and the tenant moved out on 5 October. This left a balance of 2 days to reimburse. The tenant was also paying rent one week in advance. The landlord agreed that the tenant should be reimbursed $1092.85 for overpayment of rent. Saving scheme for house deposit.

The tenant made payments to the landlord, separately from rent, and these were held by the landlord and put into a Milford saving account. The tenant made regular payments on top of rent generally $350.00 a week sometimes more. The landlord provided a schedule of all payments made and all refund or payments made.

The landlord said he held the tenant’s money, as requested by him, to help him save up for the deposit for the proposed purchase of the premises.

There was some discussion about how much the deposit was to be ranging from $30,000 to $80,000 but as this was a verbal agreement it was unable to be confirmed the amount required or what was to happen once the deposit amount was reached. It appears that the agreement was that once the tenant had a sufficient deposit, he would approach a bank for a loan to purchase.

The parties had discussions about the tenant purchasing their premises, the only record of this was on the tenancy agreement the landlord had written ‘tenant right to purchase anytime till 25 June 2015, then extend by mutual agreement, sale price by mutual agree.’ This was part of the tenancy agreement signed by the parties in 2013.

There was no formal sale and purchase agreement, rent to buy discussions or recorded rent to buy agreement.

The tenant sought some compensation for the landlord holding onto his savings and not refunding them to him when requested by e-mail on 15th July 2024. This e-mail asked for the savings to be returned to the tenants and gave account details.

The tenant claimed that a landlord cannot hold money which was not theirs.

The landlord returned the savings of $27,650 less $14,630 in rent owing to the extended date of 4th October 2024, in four amounts. • $6000 on 18 July 2024 •$1000 on 31st July 2024 •$4778 on 13th September 2024 •$2541 dollars March 2025 being a total of $14,319.

The landlord also returned the interest gained of $1299.00 while the money was held in Milford savings, after initially thinking that it had made a loss.

The tenant said that because the money was not refunded when he asked for it, he was unable to sign a commercial lease, use money to move out of the tenancy, pay a bond and purchase a car. Which caused stress that could have been avoided.

I have considered section 18A RTA and do not find that this was held as security for the tenancy. Both parties agreed that this was an arrangement to help the tenant save up for a deposit to help him purchase the premises. No contract was drawn up with regards to the purchase and the landlord said that at any time the tenant could make an offer.

There was no claim that this was rent in advance and my concern was that the landlord did use this savings credit to pay the tenants accrued rent arrears. The tenant consented to this use and raised that because this was done then it could be argued that it was rent in advance. This argument was presented as an alternative to the ongoing agreement that the money was being saved as a deposit for purchase.

I do not believe that the parties can have it both ways. Either it was a saving scheme for the house or money held as a surety for rent. All discussion over the two hearing days were that it was for savings.

I find that there was no evidence or intention that the money would be used as security for rent, rent in advance or bond or payment for damages by the tenant. Any use of the savings for rent arrears came at the direction of the tenant.

The landlord eventually, after many requests, returned the money, it less rent owing.

The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants relating to rights and obligations stipulated in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I find that the issues raised were related to property purchase not residential tenancies and property rental. It was not established that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine claims relating to ‘verbal savings agreements’ between parties.

This claim may need to be filed in another jurisdiction if the tenant seeks to have it determined.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord presented and invoice from [Construction Company] $10,223.50 for general labour to remove left behind items general rubbish. This included hiring five 9 metre waste management skips debt $578 dollars each.

It is noted that [Construction Company] is owned by the prospective purchaser of the property. The tenant disputed this amount on this basis saying that there was a conflict of interest.

The landlord agreed that he has a handshake agreement that this the contractor will be purchasing the property. He had told the contractor that he had $10,000 to tidy up the house and section, and this included cleaning.

It is the landlord’s choice who he engages and what he pays for remediation work. The Tribunal considers the evidence provided by the landlord and makes an award on that basis.

This was a large premises and the tenant agreed that he had struggled to remove all the items and clean the premises. He said that he could have come back to complete the removal and cleaning. The landlord gave him two extra days .It was explained that the landlord does not have to allow a tenant to return after the tenancy ended.

The tenant claimed that the wood and other items were there at the start of the tenancy but was unable to provided evidence to support this.

The RTA specifies that on termination of the tenancy a tenant shall remove all his or her goods from the premises leave the premises and a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition and remove or arrange for the removal from the premise of all rubbish. See section 1(40)(1)( e) RTA.

The tenant left behind beds, wood, shelving painting accessories, wood panels and planks in an attic room, a partition wall, bedframes some small electrical appliances, general rubbish in a garage and wood stored in the rafters, 15 packed banana boxes in the lounge. Outside there was furniture on the deck, chairs beds tables, an oven and two fridges, BBQ. Photographs were provided.

The invoice also included the clearing of a large firepit where the tenant had burned rubbish and a grass area where a caravan had been.

The invoice was not broken down or separated into the amount of time taken and costs for cleaning and rubbish removal.

I find the evidence supports and award of $3600.00 for the end of tenancy clean and rubbish removal. To calculate the award, I have considered. a) The contractor invoiced for five 9 metre skips, so allowing for 8 hours at $50.00 to fill each skip equals $400.00 per skip giving a total of $2000.00. b) To clear the fire pit and section of smaller debris I have allowed and extra half day being $200.00. c) The cleaning of such a large premises at the end of tenancy I have calculated on standard end of tenancy clean for a 3-bedroom premises at approximately $350.00, for 12 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms 2 kitchen and 2 lounges I have multiplied this by 4 being a total of $1400.00.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy and the parties agreed with the cost claimed. •A door repair, sanding and painting agreed at $60.00. •A sliding door in a bedroom repair agreed at $150.00.

The landlord provided evidence that the there was a hole in the outside fibrolite boards. The tenant agreed that he caused one hole and said that the boards were not in very good condition. Photographs of the outside of the premises were provided showing an older home with some smaller cracks in the boards.

The landlord had one invoice that was not itemised for the interior walls, doors and outside wall. The landlord estimated that the repair would be $250.00.Considering depreciation I award $150.00 for the repair.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

All other claims for damages are dismissed as there was not enough evidence provided to establish the claim.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Tenants’ claims

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The District Court has confirmed that when there are multiple claims for a breach under a single section (section 45 here), then only one order of exemplary damages can be made. I will therefore address the individual claims for exemplary damages for breaches of section 45 below before considering an award. Leak in sewerage pipe.

The tenant provided a photograph of a water coming out of a pipe that he said came from a toilet. The septic tank was in the orchard and the landlord confirmed that he repaired it with ‘black tape’ and thought it was satisfactory for some time however it appeared to be overflowing. No plumber was engaged to inspect this problem.

I find that the landlord has failed to maintain this in a reasonable state of repair. Bathroom.

The tenant provided photographs of unfinished renovations and some mould in the bathroom area. The landlord had installed a shower and vanity himself and the photographs show that this had not been completed. There were gaps around a vanity and plywood down the side of the shower. The landlord agreed that this area had not been finished.

The tenants witness [The witness] a qualified builder of 30 years said that it had been fixed unprofessionally. The shower had the wrong type of gib and was not waterproof because it was not ‘aquiline gib’ which is the correct material to use a bathroom area.

I find that the landlord has failed to maintain this in a reasonable state of repair. Outside walls

Photographs of the outside area show rotten facia board that was not able to be cleaned by the tenant. The landlord said he had painted the side and front of the house a few times during the tenancy. The area looked in need of maintaining and there was evidence of mould on the outside of most of the property.

There was no evidence that this had caused an issue on the inside of the property or affected the way that the tenant could use the property.

I find that the landlord has failed to maintain this in a reasonable state of repair. Carpet

Photographs were provided of carpet lifting in joins from a bedroom to the hallway, and in two other rooms, where the carpet had been removed, and the joins to the hallway were also not fixed were produced.

The landlord agreed that in one room where there had been a leak the carpet join appeared to have not been fixed back down with a strip bar.

This created a trip hazard and I find that the landlord failed to maintain that carpet. It is agreed that the carpet was old and not in very good condition however it still could have been refixed to the floor. Decks and steps

Photographs of the decks, steps and ramps were provided. The tenant and his witness [The witness] both believed there were very poor condition and not safe. They said they had almost fell through on one occasion. There was no grip, and it was slippery. There were exposed nails on a rail and painting or resurfacing was required.

The landlord said that the decks had been repainted and repaired.

The decks appear to be old in need of repair, paint and grip.

The landlord submitted that at the at the time they were built the building code was different and this is reflected in the way that deck areas and steps are built but this does not excuse the landlord from his obligation to maintain these areas.

I find that the landlord has failed to maintain this in a reasonable state of repair. Oven

The tenant said that the wall oven was not installed correctly and was not firmly fastened. The tenant provided a photo of the oven sitting loose in the cavity. The flashing had not been put in and apart from looking bad with gaps around it, he suspected that it was illegal and unsafe as it could fall on anybody using it. The tenants witness [The witness] agreed that it was not safe and was dangerous.

The oven has not been correctly installed and appears unsafe and not secure.

I find that the landlord has failed to maintain this in a reasonable state of repair. Leak in first bedroom ceiling and roof.

The parties did not dispute that there was a leak in the first bedroom. The landlord looked at it 15 August 2023 and did some work on the area he believed that this was fixed because he had not been told by the tenant that this had become a continuing issue.

The tenant provided further photos showing the wood in the roof was damaged. The landlord agreed that the issue came and went and was hard to find.

The tenant provided an email from a fellow tenant [name redacted] who that said it was a major issue when he lived there for a year and a half. In the first hearing the tenant agreed that he had not spoken to the landlord about this after that date but expected a roofer to be engaged after it had been an issue over a long time.

Considering those factors, I have determined that the landlord has failed to maintain the roof and taken the necessary steps to engage a roofing specialist to fix the issues.

I find that the landlord has failed to maintain the roof and ceilings in a reasonable state of repair.

I have determined that the landlord has failed to maintain, • Sewerage pipe • Bathroom • Outside walls • Carpet • Decks and steps • Oven installation • Ceiling

I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The need to maintain the premises in these areas was obvious and the landlord agreed that he was at the premises doing a lot of the work himself. This appears to be where the problem has been, that the landlord has failed to engage the appropriate tradesmen to complete work, instead taking it upon himself to do the jobs which has resulted in substandard and unsafe conditions.

The landlord knew he was not qualified to complete this work and I find that amount to an intentional breach. Many issues were not followed up or completed and it is not a defence to say it was the tenant’s responsibility to alert the landlord to this substandard maintenance.

Residential tenancies need to be safe, sanitary and well maintained and this is in the public interest as well as landlords complying with the requirements of the RTA.I have found that there were 7 breaches of Section 45,RTA and I am satisfied that it is just to award exemplary damages of $2200.00. Heathy Home breaches.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy: or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.

The tenancy began in 2013 and is not subject to HHS requirements. The landlord said he was aware of the changes in July 2025 and so wanted to sell the premise before then. This also influenced his lack of maintenance as he believed that the tenant was purchasing the premises so did not want to improve it too much as that would increase the price. It was explained that while there existed a landlord tenant relationship the landlord had to comply with the requirements of the RTA which includes maintaining the premises. Unlawful eviction

Termination of tenancies by giving 90 days’ notice has recently changed under the RTA. The version of the RTA that applied on the date that the notice to terminate was issued, stated, under section 51(2)(a), A periodic tenancy can be terminated by notice if (2) A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if— (a) the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition.

Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.

Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant claimed that the landlord did not put the premises on the market and therefore terminated his tenancy without being entitled to.

Did the landlord put the premises on the market?

The tenant claimed that the landlord was to sell the premises within 90 days and he did not.

On 29 June 2024 the tenant was issued a 90-day notice saying With reference to my e-mail of the 9th of May 2024 I agreed to delay the sale of this property until the 1st November conditional on you maintaining regular payments, as you are now two weeks behind, although my first preference is to sell to you I just don't see how you ever get a loan. Please treat this as a formal notice that you are to vacate the property at 7 great South road Ohaupo 5:00 PM on the 2 October 2024. The reason for this notice is that I wish to sell.

On July 15 the tenant confirmed by email to the landlord that he could not buy the premises and ‘will need to move on.’

The landlord said that he had a handshake deal with the neighbour and provided email correspondence 19 September 2024 where the prospective purchaser writes. ‘I’m just about to take the information I have received from the mortgage broker to my lawyer to draft up a sales and purchase agreement for 7 Great south road. Are you happy with the following? I pay you $100,000 on the date that suits you to hand over the property. We transfer ownership of the property into my name on that date. I take possession of the property ‘where is as is and you give me $10,000 to clean up anything left over from the last tenants. I renovation in move in new tenants. 6 months after taking ownership I'll pay you $750,000 + 5% interest based on the full $850,000 new line if you are happy with that I'll get it drawn up. You can always tweak it through your lawyer once we have it written down’ The landlord replied ‘as you say I will be guided by my lawyer but that sounds good to me’.

The property has not sold, no sale and purchase agreement has been drawn up and signed. The landlord said there exists a handshake agreement that the parties have agreed to sell and believes it will.

On 5 October 2024, the landlord emailed the tenant that he had sold the property, when this had not occurred. He said that he had done this to put pressure on the tenant to move out on time. This was not disputed, and the landlord said that he only had an agreement to sell.

The landlord said that he did not put it on the open market as the neighbour said that he would buy it and is currently fixing it up as per the agreement and he has paid him via his company [Construction Company] $10,000.00 to do so.

The RTA only requires that property be put on the market ,i.e. that there is a clear intent to sell the premises by the landlord, not that the property must sell within that time period.

The landlord misleading the tenant about the property sale although inappropriate does not negate that there is evidence that the landlord is in negotiations to sell the premises because the property is on the market and for sale.

I have found that the landlord did not breach 51(2)(a) RTA, and therefore had grounds to terminate the tenancy.

This claim is dismissed. Failure of purchase plans and access to funds

The tenant claimed that he suffered a loss because could not buy the premises and because could not access funds held. The landlord said that he could have purchased the premises at any time.

As discussed, the savings scheme arrangement I have found is not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal and correspondingly so is the claim by the tenant for the lack of access to these funds. Compensation for work done.

It was agreed that the tenant painted a lot of the interior of the premises. He said that due to lack of maintenance and based on the belief that he was going to purchase it, he repainted rooms often in between flatmates to make the room easier to rent.

The tenant did not make an application to the Tribunal claiming that the landlord and failed to maintain the premises during the tenancy. It was when the tenancy ended that this claim was made, and has been determined.

The landlord said that he never gave consent for the painting. The work it was not up to a tradesman standard as this was not the tenants profession. All the work that the tenant had done was of no benefit to him because of the low standard and he was now redoing all the areas pained by the tenant. Photographs were provided in support of this.

One exception to this was a room painted by another tenant whose profession was interior decorating. The landlord asked for him to paint it and paid him. The invoice was presented which included prep work and painting.

The tenant said that he had done all the prep work for this room and should be paid, however the invoice clearly states that it was for prep work as well as painting. This is a claim between the tenant and the painter and is not within the Tribunals jurisdiction.

I find that the tenant has not established that the landlord asked or consent to the tenant redecorating the premises. The claim is dismissed. Compensation for blinds purchased.

The tenant sought reimbursement for the costs to have blinds put in an area of the house they called ‘[Redacted] flat’. The tenant thought the cost was around $3500.00 for blinds and rollers for two sets of windows.

The tenant could not find the invoice and when questioned said he did not purchase them but the lady renting this part of the premises had. He believed that she should be reimbursed.

The tenant failed to establish the costs and did not establish that this was a loss and he had should be reimbursed for.

This claim is dismissed.

Because both parties were substantially successful with their claims name suppression is granted. The filing fees are not reimbursed.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5033297 — net $667.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish	$2,000.00		Rubbish
Firepit clean	$200.00		Firepit clean
Repairs: 1 Door paint	$60.00		Repairs: 1 Door paint
Repairs: External fibrolite Walls	$150.00		Repairs: External fibrolite Walls
Repairs: sliding door in bedroom	$150.00		Repairs: sliding door in bedroom
Cleaning	$1,400.00		Cleaning
Reimbursement rent overpaid by tenant		$1,092.85	Reimbursement rent overpaid by tenant
Exemplary damages breach Section 45		$2,200.00	Exemplary damages breach Section 45
Total award	$3,960.00	$3,292.85
Net award	$667.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$667.15