What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5056029?

The tribunal order states: Stanislav Janousek and Michaela Madrova to pay Madelyn Lou Hood and John

How much money was awarded in case 5056029?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Gas Bottle Refil: $144.90 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $34.87 awarded to landlord; Painting And Preparation: $255.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056029?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11181893-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5056029?

The tribunal order states: Stanislav Janousek and Michaela Madrova to pay Madelyn Lou Hood and John

How much money was awarded in case 5056029?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Gas Bottle Refil: $144.90 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $34.87 awarded to landlord; Painting And Preparation: $255.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056029?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11181893-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58 Rata Street, Wanaka, Wanaka 9305 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5056029 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5056029 — net $1,081.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$30.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	et cleaning is generally a reasonable requirement. The tenant is ordered to pay $350.00.
Cleaning: Driveway	$180.00	Cleaning: Driveway
Light bulbs/batteries	$34.87	The tenant is only required to replace bulbs and the tenant is ordered to pay $34.87. Gas bottles
Gas bottle refil	$144.90	ufficiently specific to allow me to make an order. The tenant is ordered to pay $144.90 for one bottle.
Repairs: Painting and preparation	$255.00	proven liability for that damage. For that damage, the tenant is ordered to pay $255.00.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,081.77
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,081.77

Order

Stanislav Janousek and Michaela Madrova to pay Madelyn Lou Hood and John Spencer Hood $1,081.77 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (5701695-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Madelyn Lou Hood and John Spencer Hood: $1,081.77 Stanislav Janousek and Michaela Madrova: $2,118.23

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 November 2024.
The tenancy of the premises commenced on 6 May 2022 and ended on 12 October 2024.
The tenants have applied for release of their bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the bond being tenant funds, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely than not. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In making a decision, I am not required to make a finding on who is telling the truth. The parties should consider a finding adverse to them to simply be an order relating to the outcome being more likely than not. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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 or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and invoices. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord evidence was that that the dishwasher, oven and rangehood were not left reasonably clean.
The tenants say that they had the premises commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy and that the premises were in a similar condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord carried out the cleaning and claims $100.00 being 2 hours at $50.00 per hour. Generally the Tribunal accepts a charge figure for landlord labour at $30.00 per hour. The landlord’s photos of the areas which require cleaning, satisfy me that those very limited areas did require further cleaning to bring them to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The tenant is to pay the landlord $30.00, as the work required to bring the areas to the required standard would not have taken more than 1 hour. Gardening
A tenant is required to keep the gardens and lawns reasonably tidy . A reasonably tidy garden is one that an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonably tidy. Not perfect or prize winning, but not of such a low standard as to suggest the property was unoccupied. The standard is reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy, not equivalent to the standard of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an estimate from a contractor for the required work of $74.75 per hour. No estimate of the likely time required was provided. The landlord also provided an estimate for their own time of 4 hours at $40.00 per hour to carry out weeding and remove the compost structure .
The tenants said that they did not know that they were responsible for the gardens. They accepted that the compost structure needed to be removed. On the evidence provided, I agree that work was required to bring the gardens to a reasonable standard and to remove the compost structure. I consider that 2 hours would be reasonable to carry out the required work at $30.00 per hour. The tenant is to pay the landlord $60.00. Carpet Clean
The carpet was installed in 2012. Mid-way through the tenancy, the tenants asked if they could have a cat. The landlord agreed on the condition that the carpets be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The estimate from Jaes to carry out the work is $350.00 to $450.00. The landlord said that there was a number of areas where there was evidence of cat urine.
The tenants said that they had the carpets professionally cleaned five months prior to the end of the tenancy and had tried to clean the stain in the bedroom themselves prior to the end of the tenancy.
Where there has been a pet at the premises, the need for carpet cleaning is generally a reasonable requirement. The tenant is ordered to pay $350.00. Driveway
The driveway forms part of the premises. The obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy includes the driveway. During the course of the tenancy, numerous oil drops have occurred. The tenant has attempted to clean the stains. The photos provided by the landlord show that if anything, the tenants’ efforts have made the matter even worse. The landlord seeks $180.00 for the cleaning of the spots. The amount claimed is reasonable and includes the chemical wash product. Lightbulbs
A tenant is required to replace any blown standard light bulbs at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed $34.87 for bulbs and $80.00 for an electrician to replace the fluorescent bulb in the bathroom.
The tenant is only required to replace bulbs and the tenant is ordered to pay $34.87. Gas bottles
The landlord said that 2 full bottles were provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant was to leave 2 full bottles at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy, one bottle was empty and the other between ½ and ¾ full. The landlord seeks $144.90 for the empty bottle and $72.45 for the partly full bottle.
The tenant says that there was no evidence that the bottles were full at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant says that they are prepared to pay for one half of the empty bottle.
In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the landlord, that both bottles were full at the commencement of the tenancy. I also accept that one bottle was empty at the end of the tenancy. The landlord evidence on the partly full bottle was not sufficiently specific to allow me to make an order. The tenant is ordered to pay $144.90 for one bottle.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The Tenancy Agreement records that the landlord has insurance with an excess on the policy of $800.00 on each and every claim.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that there was damage to the walls in the kitchen, main bedroom, hallway and “4 th bedroom”. Attempts had been made by the tenants to patch holes in some areas.
The tenant says that the marks on the wall in the 4 th bedroom were present at the commencement to the tenancy. The tenant otherwise says that “patch repairs” should have been undertaken, rather than repainting whole walls.
The landlord provided photos of areas which they say were damaged, but that had been concealed by the tenants by placing plants or furniture over them. The landlord seeks compensation of $510.00.
I have limited photographic evidence on which to base a decision. I have no pre tenancy photos, so as to be in a position where I could be sure that the damage has occurred during the tenancy. Having viewed the evidence that I do have, I am satisfied that some damage claimed by the landlord did occur during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for that damage. For that damage, the tenant is ordered to pay $255.00.
The amounts ordered are proven.
Where necessary, 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.
As Madelyn Lou Hood, John Spencer Hood has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5056029 — net $1,081.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$30.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$60.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$350.00	et cleaning is generally a reasonable requirement. The tenant is ordered to pay $350.00.
Cleaning: Driveway	$180.00	Cleaning: Driveway
Light bulbs/batteries	$34.87	The tenant is only required to replace bulbs and the tenant is ordered to pay $34.87. Gas bottles
Gas bottle refil	$144.90	ufficiently specific to allow me to make an order. The tenant is ordered to pay $144.90 for one bottle.
Repairs: Painting and preparation	$255.00	proven liability for that damage. For that damage, the tenant is ordered to pay $255.00.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,081.77
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,081.77

Order

Stanislav Janousek and Michaela Madrova to pay Madelyn Lou Hood and John Spencer Hood $1,081.77 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (5701695-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Madelyn Lou Hood and John Spencer Hood: $1,081.77 Stanislav Janousek and Michaela Madrova: $2,118.23

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 November 2024.
The tenancy of the premises commenced on 6 May 2022 and ended on 12 October 2024.
The tenants have applied for release of their bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the bond being tenant funds, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely than not. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In making a decision, I am not required to make a finding on who is telling the truth. The parties should consider a finding adverse to them to simply be an order relating to the outcome being more likely than not. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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 or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
In this case, both parties have submitted documentary evidence including emails, photos and invoices. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however, the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord evidence was that that the dishwasher, oven and rangehood were not left reasonably clean.
The tenants say that they had the premises commercially cleaned at the end of the tenancy and that the premises were in a similar condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord carried out the cleaning and claims $100.00 being 2 hours at $50.00 per hour. Generally the Tribunal accepts a charge figure for landlord labour at $30.00 per hour. The landlord’s photos of the areas which require cleaning, satisfy me that those very limited areas did require further cleaning to bring them to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The tenant is to pay the landlord $30.00, as the work required to bring the areas to the required standard would not have taken more than 1 hour. Gardening
A tenant is required to keep the gardens and lawns reasonably tidy . A reasonably tidy garden is one that an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonably tidy. Not perfect or prize winning, but not of such a low standard as to suggest the property was unoccupied. The standard is reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy, not equivalent to the standard of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided an estimate from a contractor for the required work of $74.75 per hour. No estimate of the likely time required was provided. The landlord also provided an estimate for their own time of 4 hours at $40.00 per hour to carry out weeding and remove the compost structure .
The tenants said that they did not know that they were responsible for the gardens. They accepted that the compost structure needed to be removed. On the evidence provided, I agree that work was required to bring the gardens to a reasonable standard and to remove the compost structure. I consider that 2 hours would be reasonable to carry out the required work at $30.00 per hour. The tenant is to pay the landlord $60.00. Carpet Clean
The carpet was installed in 2012. Mid-way through the tenancy, the tenants asked if they could have a cat. The landlord agreed on the condition that the carpets be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The estimate from Jaes to carry out the work is $350.00 to $450.00. The landlord said that there was a number of areas where there was evidence of cat urine.
The tenants said that they had the carpets professionally cleaned five months prior to the end of the tenancy and had tried to clean the stain in the bedroom themselves prior to the end of the tenancy.
Where there has been a pet at the premises, the need for carpet cleaning is generally a reasonable requirement. The tenant is ordered to pay $350.00. Driveway
The driveway forms part of the premises. The obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy includes the driveway. During the course of the tenancy, numerous oil drops have occurred. The tenant has attempted to clean the stains. The photos provided by the landlord show that if anything, the tenants’ efforts have made the matter even worse. The landlord seeks $180.00 for the cleaning of the spots. The amount claimed is reasonable and includes the chemical wash product. Lightbulbs
A tenant is required to replace any blown standard light bulbs at the end of the tenancy. The landlord has claimed $34.87 for bulbs and $80.00 for an electrician to replace the fluorescent bulb in the bathroom.
The tenant is only required to replace bulbs and the tenant is ordered to pay $34.87. Gas bottles
The landlord said that 2 full bottles were provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant was to leave 2 full bottles at the end of the tenancy. The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy, one bottle was empty and the other between ½ and ¾ full. The landlord seeks $144.90 for the empty bottle and $72.45 for the partly full bottle.
The tenant says that there was no evidence that the bottles were full at the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant says that they are prepared to pay for one half of the empty bottle.
In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the landlord, that both bottles were full at the commencement of the tenancy. I also accept that one bottle was empty at the end of the tenancy. The landlord evidence on the partly full bottle was not sufficiently specific to allow me to make an order. The tenant is ordered to pay $144.90 for one bottle.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The Tenancy Agreement records that the landlord has insurance with an excess on the policy of $800.00 on each and every claim.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that there was damage to the walls in the kitchen, main bedroom, hallway and “4 th bedroom”. Attempts had been made by the tenants to patch holes in some areas.
The tenant says that the marks on the wall in the 4 th bedroom were present at the commencement to the tenancy. The tenant otherwise says that “patch repairs” should have been undertaken, rather than repainting whole walls.
The landlord provided photos of areas which they say were damaged, but that had been concealed by the tenants by placing plants or furniture over them. The landlord seeks compensation of $510.00.
I have limited photographic evidence on which to base a decision. I have no pre tenancy photos, so as to be in a position where I could be sure that the damage has occurred during the tenancy. Having viewed the evidence that I do have, I am satisfied that some damage claimed by the landlord did occur during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproven liability for that damage. For that damage, the tenant is ordered to pay $255.00.
The amounts ordered are proven.
Where necessary, 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.
As Madelyn Lou Hood, John Spencer Hood has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056029 — Cleanliness at 58 Rata Street, Wanaka, Wanaka 9305

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5056029 — Cleanliness at 58 Rata Street, Wanaka, Wanaka 9305

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions