What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5098268 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for the additional rent is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5098268?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098268?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11885593-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5098268 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for the additional rent is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5098268?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5098268?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5098268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11885593-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

74 Young Access, Dairy Flat, Dairy Flat 0992 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5098268 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 17 March 2025 the Tribunal issued an order for rent arrears to 9 January 2025 and refunded the bond.

The landlord sought further rent until 18 January 2025, which the tenant disputes, and a further hearing was scheduled to hear evidence on the additional nine days of rent. Background

The tenancy was terminated by the landlord with an end date of 3 January 2025. At the last hearing, the tenants confirmed that an arrangement was made for them to stay at the property until 9 January 2025 to complete cleaning, although the tenants advised they had moved out of the property prior to 9 January 2025.

The landlord carried out an exit inspection around that time and requested that the tenant return to the property to carry out further cleaning and removing of rubbish and belongings. The tenant accordingly arranged for a professional cleaner to carry out further cleaning to the property and provided evidence from that cleaner.

Communications show that despite cleaning, the landlord continued to request that the tenant return to do more cleaning to the property.

The landlord seeks rent until 18 January 2025 on the basis that they were unable to rent out the property while the tenant was continuing to return to the property (at the landlord’s request). They say that they did not engage their own cleaner as they did not think they be able to recover the costs from the tenant.

The tenant disputes that further cleaning was required at all but were trying to appease the landlord and so did their best to meet the demands. They dispute however, that they are liable for any rent during this period. The law and conclusion

In my view the tenancy had ended by 9 January 2025. The tenant no longer had the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent.

Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that where a party breaches any of the provisions of the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach.

A tenant is required upon vacating a property to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA.

Here, if the tenant did breach section 40(1)(e) of the RTA (and I have not had to consider if they did), the landlord is required to limit their losses arising from that breach.

The landlord could have done so by arranging a cleaner and rubbish removal immediately. Landlords often take these steps within a few days of an exit inspection. The landlord’s decision to have or request the tenant to return to the property multiple times and over several weeks increased their losses (through lack of rent). However, those losses stemmed from their decision not to act immediately to remedy the alleged breach.

I am not convinced that their concerns around meaningful enforcement limit their obligation to mitigate their losses.

I am therefore satisfied that the landlord failed to mitigate their own losses and should not be awarded the additional nine days rent sought.

The claim for the additional nine days rent from 9 January 2025 to 18 January 2025 is therefore dismissed. R Harvey-Lane 26 May 2025

Order

The application for the additional rent is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 17 March 2025 the Tribunal issued an order for rent arrears to 9 January 2025 and refunded the bond.
The landlord sought further rent until 18 January 2025, which the tenant disputes, and a further hearing was scheduled to hear evidence on the additional nine days of rent. Background
The tenancy was terminated by the landlord with an end date of 3 January 2025. At the last hearing, the tenants confirmed that an arrangement was made for them to stay at the property until 9 January 2025 to complete cleaning, although the tenants advised they had moved out of the property prior to 9 January 2025.
The landlord carried out an exit inspection around that time and requested that the tenant return to the property to carry out further cleaning and removing of rubbish and belongings. The tenant accordingly arranged for a professional cleaner to carry out further cleaning to the property and provided evidence from that cleaner.
Communications show that despite cleaning, the landlord continued to request that the tenant return to do more cleaning to the property.
The landlord seeks rent until 18 January 2025 on the basis that they were unable to rent out the property while the tenant was continuing to return to the property (at the landlord’s request). They say that they did not engage their own cleaner as they did not think they be able to recover the costs from the tenant.
The tenant disputes that further cleaning was required at all but were trying to appease the landlord and so did their best to meet the demands. They dispute however, that they are liable for any rent during this period. The law and conclusion
In my view the tenancy had ended by 9 January 2025. The tenant no longer had the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent.
Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that where a party breaches any of the provisions of the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach.
A tenant is required upon vacating a property to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e) of the RTA.
Here, if the tenant did breach section 40(1)(e) of the RTA (and I have not had to consider if they did), the landlord is required to limit their losses arising from that breach.
The landlord could have done so by arranging a cleaner and rubbish removal immediately. Landlords often take these steps within a few days of an exit inspection. The landlord’s decision to have or request the tenant to return to the property multiple times and over several weeks increased their losses (through lack of rent). However, those losses stemmed from their decision not to act immediately to remedy the alleged breach.
I am not convinced that their concerns around meaningful enforcement limit their obligation to mitigate their losses.
I am therefore satisfied that the landlord failed to mitigate their own losses and should not be awarded the additional nine days rent sought.
The claim for the additional nine days rent from 9 January 2025 to 18 January 2025 is therefore dismissed. R Harvey-Lane 26 May 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098268 — Rent arrears at 74 Young Access, Dairy Flat, Dairy Flat 0992

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5098268 — Rent arrears at 74 Young Access, Dairy Flat, Dairy Flat 0992

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions