What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065673 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 5065673?

Advertising: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Clothesline: $135.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Sleep Out Lock: $114.87 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $181.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065673?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11750982-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065673 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 5065673?

Advertising: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Clothesline: $135.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Sleep Out Lock: $114.87 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Power: $181.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065673?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11750982-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065673 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5065673 — net $456.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Power	$181.65		Power
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00		Lawns and Garden work
Advertising	$175.00		Advertising
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		42. The claim is fair and reasonable.
Compensation: Sleep out lock		$114.87	Sleep out lock
Compensation: Clothesline		$135.00	Clothesline
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	42. The claim is fair and reasonable.
Total award	$733.65	$276.87
Net award	$456.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$456.78

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: : :

Reasons

Background

This was a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 10 November 2023 and ended by consent on 20 September 2024.
The tenant’s application sought refund of the bond, cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy, reimbursement of the cost of changing the lock on the sleepout and compensation for loss of use of the sleepout, and compensation for loss of use of the clothesline.
The landlord’s application sought power costs, cleaning at the end of the tenancy, repairs to a cavity slider door and a roller blind, gardening costs, and advertising costs.
The hearing took place at the [Event location suppressed] on 23 April 2025. [The tenant/s] was represented by [The tenant’s representative], with the consent of the Tribunal. [The landlord/s] attended by phone. [The witness/s] participated in the hearing as a witness. Tenant application Cleaning
The claim seeks cleaning costs of $80.00.
[The tenant’s representative] said that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy. The tenant raised this issue with the landlord. [The witness/s] carried out some more cleaning. [The tenant’s representative] said that the premises were still not reasonably clean.
They arranged for their own cleaning at a cost of $80, and informed the landlord that they would take the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy into account when they were cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim seeks cleaning costs of $300 on the grounds that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The parties provided some photographs from the beginning and end of the tenancy. From the beginning of the tenancy, I have photographs from the tenant and the entry inspection report completed by the landlord’s (then) property manager. From the end of the tenancy, I have a selection of photographs in an email from the landlord.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) imposes a duty on the landlord to provide the premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” 1 , and on the tenant to leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy” 2 at the end of the tenancy. Although the wording is slightly different, the standard is intended to be the same.
People can have legitimately different views about what amounts to ‘reasonably clean’. For that reason, the Tribunal is heavily reliant on visual evidence (photographs or video) when determining cleaning claims.
The photographs provided to me show that the premises were, in some respects, not reasonably clean and tidy either at the start of the tenancy or at the end of the tenancy. The photographs do not establish that the condition at the end was worse than the beginning. The tenant and landlord both needed to do some cleaning to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
My finding is that the two claims essentially cancel each other out, and I will not award cleaning costs to either the landlord or the tenant. Sleepout lock
[The tenant’s representative] said that the lock on the sleepout did not work from the beginning of the tenancy. He said that [The tenant/s] raised the issue with the property manager at the beginning of the tenancy and that [The landlord/s] was also aware of it.
Approximately five months into the tenancy, the key snapped in the lock when the tenant was attempting to open the door. She then had the lock changed at a cost of $229.74. The claim seeks reimbursement of that cost, and also $120.00 compensation for not being able the use the sleepout.
[The landlord/s] said that he was not aware of this issue.
[The tenant’s representative] provided a copy of an email from the property manager to the tenant from the start of the tenancy which stated: I just wanted to check to see if you managed to get the door lock to work on the sleepout. The owner advised that they had accessed it to remove their stuff but [redacted] struggle left to open when usually it would be to the right. They also said it was pretty tricky given that it had not been used for a year.
There is no evidence of any further written communication by the tenant to the landlord or the property manager about this issue. 1 Section 45(1)(a) RTA 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
Landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 3 This means that they must respond promptly and appropriately to repair issues that the tenant brings to their attention.
The landlord’s obligation to reimburse the tenant for repair costs is limited. 4 They are only obliged to do if the tenant has made all reasonable attempts to have the landlord carry out the repair, and the state of disrepair is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious or urgent.
Those criteria do not apply in this instance.
The email quoted above shows that this was a known issue, although the extent of the problem was unclear at that stage. It is certainly not clear that the property manager knew that the tenant could not access the sleepout at all.
There was a problem with the sleepout lock, it cost money to repair, it is a maintenance issue, not tenant damage. The landlord had some knowledge (through the agent) of an issue with the lock, but there was no specific request from the tenant to repair or replace it, and the landlord was not given the option to replace the lock after the tenant’s key broke off in it.
Balancing these considerations my finding is that: a. The landlord is liable for half of the proven cost of replacing the lock. b. The tenant’s claim for compensation for loss of use of the sleepout is dismissed. Clothesline
The clothesline broke in early 2024. [The landlord/s] confirmed that he was aware of this when he carried out an inspection in March 2024.
The clothesline was not replaced. The tenants bought a clothes rack for $135. Their claim seeks that amount.
The clothesline was part of the property that the tenant paid rent for. The landlord was obliged to maintain it in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant was without this amenity for most of her tenancy.
The claim for $135 is fair and reasonable. Landlord application Power bill
This was not disputed by the tenant. 3 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 4 Section 45(1)(d) RTA Cavity slide and blinds
The claim seeks the cost of repairing the cavity slider door in the master bedroom and a roller blind in the lounge.
Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage that occurs during the tenancy. 5
The problem with the cavity slider was noted on the entry inspection report.
There is no evidence to establish that the issue with the roller blind was due to any careless or intentional action by the tenant. There are no signs of physical damage to the roller blind. Gardening
The tenant was responsible for gardening (but not lawns) per the terms of the written tenancy agreement.
The standard that applies is “reasonably tidy”.
The claim seeks $920.00 for garden tidy up at the end of the tenancy.
[The landlord/s] provided photographs from the end of the tenancy which show that some gardening work was necessary to bring the garden to that standard.
[The tenant’s representative] provided some photographs showing the condition of parts of the garden at the beginning of the tenancy. These photographs are relevant in that they indicate the landlord’s expectation or understanding of what amounts to “reasonably tidy”.
Having regard to the photographs my finding is that the landlord’s claim for $920 is not justified. That extent of work would bring the garden to a standard beyond “reasonably tidy”, which is beyond the tenant’s obligation. I will award $350, reflecting a few hours’ labour and green waste disposal. Advertising
The tenant sought permission to end the fixed term tenancy early, which the landlord agreed to. Landlords may recover reasonable expenses associated with the surrender of a tenancy. 6
In this instance [The landlord/s] only seeks the advertising cost of $172.50. [The landlord/s] confirmed that this was an actual cost incurred by him.
The claim is fair and reasonable. 5 Section 49B RTA 6 Section 44A RTA Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Both parties were partially successful in their applications, and both are entitled to the filing fee. 7
[The landlord/s] is to receive $456.78 from the bond per the calculation above. The balance will be released to the tenant.
Both parties sought name suppression. I am satisfied that both parties were successful in the proceedings 8 in that they succeeded in parts of their own applications and successful defended parts of the other party’s application. In the circumstances it is appropriate to grant name suppression to both.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5065673 — net $456.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Power	$181.65		Power
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00		Lawns and Garden work
Advertising	$175.00		Advertising
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		42. The claim is fair and reasonable.
Compensation: Sleep out lock		$114.87	Sleep out lock
Compensation: Clothesline		$135.00	Clothesline
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	42. The claim is fair and reasonable.
Total award	$733.65	$276.87
Net award	$456.78
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$456.78

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: : :

Reasons

Background

This was a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 10 November 2023 and ended by consent on 20 September 2024.
The tenant’s application sought refund of the bond, cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy, reimbursement of the cost of changing the lock on the sleepout and compensation for loss of use of the sleepout, and compensation for loss of use of the clothesline.
The landlord’s application sought power costs, cleaning at the end of the tenancy, repairs to a cavity slider door and a roller blind, gardening costs, and advertising costs.
The hearing took place at the [Event location suppressed] on 23 April 2025. [The tenant/s] was represented by [The tenant’s representative], with the consent of the Tribunal. [The landlord/s] attended by phone. [The witness/s] participated in the hearing as a witness. Tenant application Cleaning
The claim seeks cleaning costs of $80.00.
[The tenant’s representative] said that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy. The tenant raised this issue with the landlord. [The witness/s] carried out some more cleaning. [The tenant’s representative] said that the premises were still not reasonably clean.
They arranged for their own cleaning at a cost of $80, and informed the landlord that they would take the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy into account when they were cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim seeks cleaning costs of $300 on the grounds that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The parties provided some photographs from the beginning and end of the tenancy. From the beginning of the tenancy, I have photographs from the tenant and the entry inspection report completed by the landlord’s (then) property manager. From the end of the tenancy, I have a selection of photographs in an email from the landlord.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) imposes a duty on the landlord to provide the premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” 1 , and on the tenant to leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy” 2 at the end of the tenancy. Although the wording is slightly different, the standard is intended to be the same.
People can have legitimately different views about what amounts to ‘reasonably clean’. For that reason, the Tribunal is heavily reliant on visual evidence (photographs or video) when determining cleaning claims.
The photographs provided to me show that the premises were, in some respects, not reasonably clean and tidy either at the start of the tenancy or at the end of the tenancy. The photographs do not establish that the condition at the end was worse than the beginning. The tenant and landlord both needed to do some cleaning to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
My finding is that the two claims essentially cancel each other out, and I will not award cleaning costs to either the landlord or the tenant. Sleepout lock
[The tenant’s representative] said that the lock on the sleepout did not work from the beginning of the tenancy. He said that [The tenant/s] raised the issue with the property manager at the beginning of the tenancy and that [The landlord/s] was also aware of it.
Approximately five months into the tenancy, the key snapped in the lock when the tenant was attempting to open the door. She then had the lock changed at a cost of $229.74. The claim seeks reimbursement of that cost, and also $120.00 compensation for not being able the use the sleepout.
[The landlord/s] said that he was not aware of this issue.
[The tenant’s representative] provided a copy of an email from the property manager to the tenant from the start of the tenancy which stated: I just wanted to check to see if you managed to get the door lock to work on the sleepout. The owner advised that they had accessed it to remove their stuff but [redacted] struggle left to open when usually it would be to the right. They also said it was pretty tricky given that it had not been used for a year.
There is no evidence of any further written communication by the tenant to the landlord or the property manager about this issue. 1 Section 45(1)(a) RTA 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
Landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. 3 This means that they must respond promptly and appropriately to repair issues that the tenant brings to their attention.
The landlord’s obligation to reimburse the tenant for repair costs is limited. 4 They are only obliged to do if the tenant has made all reasonable attempts to have the landlord carry out the repair, and the state of disrepair is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious or urgent.
Those criteria do not apply in this instance.
The email quoted above shows that this was a known issue, although the extent of the problem was unclear at that stage. It is certainly not clear that the property manager knew that the tenant could not access the sleepout at all.
There was a problem with the sleepout lock, it cost money to repair, it is a maintenance issue, not tenant damage. The landlord had some knowledge (through the agent) of an issue with the lock, but there was no specific request from the tenant to repair or replace it, and the landlord was not given the option to replace the lock after the tenant’s key broke off in it.
Balancing these considerations my finding is that: a. The landlord is liable for half of the proven cost of replacing the lock. b. The tenant’s claim for compensation for loss of use of the sleepout is dismissed. Clothesline
The clothesline broke in early 2024. [The landlord/s] confirmed that he was aware of this when he carried out an inspection in March 2024.
The clothesline was not replaced. The tenants bought a clothes rack for $135. Their claim seeks that amount.
The clothesline was part of the property that the tenant paid rent for. The landlord was obliged to maintain it in a reasonable state of repair. The tenant was without this amenity for most of her tenancy.
The claim for $135 is fair and reasonable. Landlord application Power bill
This was not disputed by the tenant. 3 Section 45(1)(b) RTA 4 Section 45(1)(d) RTA Cavity slide and blinds
The claim seeks the cost of repairing the cavity slider door in the master bedroom and a roller blind in the lounge.
Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage that occurs during the tenancy. 5
The problem with the cavity slider was noted on the entry inspection report.
There is no evidence to establish that the issue with the roller blind was due to any careless or intentional action by the tenant. There are no signs of physical damage to the roller blind. Gardening
The tenant was responsible for gardening (but not lawns) per the terms of the written tenancy agreement.
The standard that applies is “reasonably tidy”.
The claim seeks $920.00 for garden tidy up at the end of the tenancy.
[The landlord/s] provided photographs from the end of the tenancy which show that some gardening work was necessary to bring the garden to that standard.
[The tenant’s representative] provided some photographs showing the condition of parts of the garden at the beginning of the tenancy. These photographs are relevant in that they indicate the landlord’s expectation or understanding of what amounts to “reasonably tidy”.
Having regard to the photographs my finding is that the landlord’s claim for $920 is not justified. That extent of work would bring the garden to a standard beyond “reasonably tidy”, which is beyond the tenant’s obligation. I will award $350, reflecting a few hours’ labour and green waste disposal. Advertising
The tenant sought permission to end the fixed term tenancy early, which the landlord agreed to. Landlords may recover reasonable expenses associated with the surrender of a tenancy. 6
In this instance [The landlord/s] only seeks the advertising cost of $172.50. [The landlord/s] confirmed that this was an actual cost incurred by him.
The claim is fair and reasonable. 5 Section 49B RTA 6 Section 44A RTA Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Both parties were partially successful in their applications, and both are entitled to the filing fee. 7
[The landlord/s] is to receive $456.78 from the bond per the calculation above. The balance will be released to the tenant.
Both parties sought name suppression. I am satisfied that both parties were successful in the proceedings 8 in that they succeeded in parts of their own applications and successful defended parts of the other party’s application. In the circumstances it is appropriate to grant name suppression to both.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065673 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065673 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions