What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5096748 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 5096748?

Cleaning: $1,283.40 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $189.29 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Other: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $407.24 awarded to landlord; Door: $623.88 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $307.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $49.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096748?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11723034-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5096748 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 5096748?

Cleaning: $1,283.40 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $189.29 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Other: $330.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $407.24 awarded to landlord; Door: $623.88 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $307.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $49.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5096748?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5096748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11723034-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5096748 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5096748 — net $3,217.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$49.00	2. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Lock/key replacement	$407.24	Lock/key replacement
Other	$330.00	Other
Rubbish removal	$307.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Door	$623.88	Repairs: Door
Cleaning	$1,283.40	Cleaning
Oven/stove cleaning	$189.29	Oven/stove cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,217.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,217.31

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

The tenancy ended on 29 November 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing from 2 August 2024 to 7 February 2025.

The Tenant disagreed stating that they moved out by then so should not have been charged up to February 2025. At the end of the tenancy, the Landlord had refunded the Tenant some overpaid rent so she could not understand why she would be owing water rates.

The Landlord replied they could not apply the rent payment to a water payment. The water after the Tenant moved out was incurred from cleaning the property. The landlord was then happy to reduce the water rates to four months equating to $36.00.

The Tenant still disagreed because she was not given a chance to clean the property.

In considering the evidence, the Landlord has provided water records to prove the amount owing and evidence as to why they had to clean the property. I accept this would have incurred more water usage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The Landlord submitted the Tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The Landlord claimed $1283.40 and provided an extensive cleaning list that was needed after the Tenant vacated the property, including dirty doors, walls, ceilings, carpets, windows, switches, bathroom surfaces, kitchen appliances, and other interior areas. The landlord referred to a picture drawn on the lounge window and heat pump filters that needed cleaning. The total cleaning costs were supported by two invoices, one for the house and one for the oven. The outgoing inspection report was also provided to substantiate the list of cleaning required.

The Tenant responded that while she agreed the house needed cleaning after her move-out, she did not agree with the charge. She believed the property was left in a generally clean state and suggested a fair cost would be around $500. She also stated she would have done the cleaning herself had she not been evicted and denied further access.

In considering the evidence, I find from the outgoing inspection photographs and very detailed inspection report that extensive cleaning was required. The cleaning invoices and list of cleaning tasks provided by the Landlord support the reasonableness of the amount charged.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The Landlord claimed to change the locks. A locksmith was arranged to change the locks with police present, but the process was delayed due the Tenant.

The Tenant disagreed with the lock change, saying she was willing to hand over the keys and had informed the police. She argued the lock change was unnecessary since her brother had also handed over a garage remote.

The landlord however stated they do not accept keys from evicted tenants due to security concerns and potential unknown copies. She added that although they waited around three hours for court confirmation, the locksmith only charged for two hours. An invoice was provided to support the charge.

In considering the evidence, I accept lock changes were required for security reasons due to the eviction and that the action was necessary in this situation.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord claimed for the cost of having two agents attend the property to allow the Tenant to remove her belongings after she had been evicted.

The Landlord submitted she had agreed with the Tenant to attend the property on 18 December 2024 between 9.00am and 12.00pm however the Tenant took five hours instead. The contractor required two agents to attend the property when the Tenant was present. The Landlord submitted that the contractor would have no reason to lie to her that there were two agents present at the property.

The Tenant disagreed, saying only one contractor stayed and the second person left early. She added that the contractor told her to take her time and even gave extra time past noon. The Tenant agreed to pay for one agent but not two.

In considering the evidence, I find it reasonable that the Landlord had to arrange for two agents to attend the property to allow the Tenant to remove their belongings for safety reasons. An invoice was provided to substantiate the costs.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The Landlord claimed $307.50 for the rubbish removal which included various items, including metal scraps, a skateboard ramp, and leftover garden materials, were left outside the property. A contractor cleaned the area, charging for three hours of work and a $92 dumping fee. Photographs of the rubbish in the outgoing inspection report and an invoice for the removal was provided.

The Tenant disagreed, stating she had already submitted her own photos showing the property was clean when she left. She admitted leaving behind wine barrels she had arranged to be collected, which did not happen. She claimed the bins were put out for council collection and disputed the $300 rubbish removal charge, saying most waste was collected by council trucks. The Tenant agreed to pay $100 for the wine barrels but not the full cleaning fee.

In considering the evidence, the Landlord has provided photographs and an invoice to substantiate the costs to remove the rubbish. The Tenants disputed this but did not prove there was no rubbish present at the property at the end of the tenancy and the photographs did not indicate this.

The amount ordered is 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.

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.

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: Bedroom door removal.

The Landlord reported that during the final inspection, the door to bedroom 2 was missing, with only the handle found in the kitchen. An invoice of $688.00 was submitted for the replacement, installation, and painting of the new door. The Landlord maintained full replacement was necessary for the property’s presentation and that a proper job could not be done cheaply.

The Tenant admitted the door was removed after her son kicked the door. She explained it was a thin, low-quality door made with chipboard and cardboard. Instead of replacing it right away, she repurposed another door from the house (originally leading to the garage) for her son’s room. She claimed she intended to replace it and found similar doors online for under $100.

The Tenant disputed the high cost, noting the door was three years old and part of a 2021-built house, but accepted responsibility for the damage.

In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant is responsible for the damage to the door which appears to have been caused intentionally by the tenants son. The Tenant has an obligation to report damage immediately to the Landlord but failed to. They have disputed the costs stating cheaper doors can be sourced however provided no evidence of this.

The amount ordered is 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.

As the Landlord has been wholly successful with their claims, name suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee is granted.

As the Tenant has not been successful name suppression is not granted.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5096748 — net $3,217.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$49.00	2. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Lock/key replacement	$407.24	Lock/key replacement
Other	$330.00	Other
Rubbish removal	$307.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Door	$623.88	Repairs: Door
Cleaning	$1,283.40	Cleaning
Oven/stove cleaning	$189.29	Oven/stove cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,217.31
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,217.31

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

The tenancy ended on 29 November 2024. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing from 2 August 2024 to 7 February 2025.

The Tenant still disagreed because she was not given a chance to clean the property.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

The Landlord claimed to change the locks. A locksmith was arranged to change the locks with police present, but the process was delayed due the Tenant.

In considering the evidence, I accept lock changes were required for security reasons due to the eviction and that the action was necessary in this situation.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord claimed for the cost of having two agents attend the property to allow the Tenant to remove her belongings after she had been evicted.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Bedroom door removal.

The Tenant disputed the high cost, noting the door was three years old and part of a 2021-built house, but accepted responsibility for the damage.

The amount ordered is proved.

As the Landlord has been wholly successful with their claims, name suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee is granted.

As the Tenant has not been successful name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096748 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5096748 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

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

How much is owed for water rates arrears?

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