What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5135669?

The tribunal order states: Madison Elizabeth Leigh must pay Christopher Lennox $1265.69 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5135669?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $607.19 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $261.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135669?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11752622-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5135669?

The tribunal order states: Madison Elizabeth Leigh must pay Christopher Lennox $1265.69 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5135669?

Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $607.19 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $261.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135669?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11752622-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Essex Street, Stratford, Stratford 4332 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5135669 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

17 Essex Street, Stratford, Stratford 4332 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5135669 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5135669 — net $1,265.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 January 2025	$1,600.00	Rent arrears to 10 January 2025
Window repairs: Repair	$261.50	Window repairs: Repair
Repairs: Gutter replacement	$607.19	Repairs: Gutter replacement
Cleaning	$160.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$210.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,265.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,265.69

Claims and awards for application 5135669 — net $1,265.69 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 10 January 2025

Amount: $1,600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 10 January 2025

Window repairs: Repair

Amount: $261.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs: Repair

Repairs: Gutter replacement

Amount: $607.19
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Gutter replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $160.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $210.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Madison Elizabeth Leigh must pay Christopher Lennox $1265.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3065004-011) to Christopher Lennox immediately.
The landlord is to file the change of landlord form as provided to the Tribunal dated 24 April 2025 with the Bond Centre.
The claim for a missing TV aerial is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord did not want to pursue the claims for exemplary damages.

Who is the Landlord?

The property was bought by Mr Lennox and his partner with settlement taking place on 8 December 2023. The tenant was already in occupation.
Initially an agent managed the tenancy, but Mr Lennox then took over management of the property himself with his partner. The bond was only lodged in the name of Mr Lennox‘s partner.
I am satisfied that the landlord in this application, Mr Lennox was a landlord with his partner from 8 December 2023 as the evidence shows he was a property owner, received the rent into his account and managed the property.
I am satisfied that Mr Lennox has been the tenant’s landlord from 8 December 2023 and therefore that the application may proceed today in his name.

How much is owed for rent?

I am satisfied that the tenancy ended on 10 January 2025.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims $1600 and while this does not exactly match the records provided, I am satisfied this sum will not result in an overpayment to the landlord (records indicate a slight under claim here).
The amount ordered is proven.

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. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the tenant left a significant amount of rubbish. The landlord says that it took 3 people 2 hours to take all the rubbish to a farm where it was disposed of. There are no dump fees because the rubbish was taken to the farm.
I find it reasonable for the rubbish disposal to have taken 3 people 2 hours each. The rubbish included a number of large bulky items. The landlord did the work himself with his partner and a family member. I find $35 per hour to be a reasonable sum and therefore award $210 for the labour costs of rubbish disposal.
I make no award in relation to the cost sought for dumping the rubbish as the landlord was able to do this at no cost therefore there has been no loss.
The landlord says that the tenant did not return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. He and his partner had to vacuum the carpet, scrub the walls, ceilings, wash windows, clean the oven, get rid of cobwebs and clean the bathroom and kitchen.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises. For example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work.
It is also relevant to note that the onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
I am satisfied that the photographs support that the property was not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, the limited photographs do not support the extent of the claim. The work described would have more likely than not have taken the premises to a state better than the tenant was required to return it. Based on the evidence provided I award the landlord $160 towards cleaning including the cost of cleaning products.

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. Window
I am satisfied that a back window was broken during the course of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has incurred $261.50 in repair costs and I consider this to be reasonable. This sum is ordered.
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. However, I have not depreciated this sum awarded as I do not consider the landlord has had any benefit by the replacement of a windowpane. Guttering
The landlord says that the tenant removed a portion of guttering and a downpipe. A builder’s report shows that it was lead. The landlord says that the tenant reported that there had been damage occurring in a weather event. However, the landlord says it is suspicious as the portion of gutter that has been removed stops at the boundary of the property next door (the property is semi- detached and the landlord also owns the home next door). He thinks that it has been removed to sell for scrap metal. A metal TV aerial is also missing (see below). The guttering and downpipe was not retained by the tenant (so the landlord was not able to repair it using the existing product or observe the damage). Instead, the tenant put up some PVC pipe in just part of the section, which was an insufficient fix. The tenant only told the landlord about this issue when specifically asked about it.
No weather damage occurred to the neighbouring property’s guttering and a builder’s report commissioned just before the purchase of the property did not note any issues with the condition of the guttering other than it needing a clean.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy. I have carefully considered whether the landlord has proven if this is more than fair wear and tear and, given the above circumstances, I find it more likely than not that this is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The guttering and pipe that were removed were likely original (1970s). Now the landlord has new guttering which is PVC but this is only in relation to part of the house, so it does not match the rest of the property or the property they own next door: The landlord now has mismatching guttering.
In this specific situation I consider there has been no betterment to the overall position and award the $607.19 that is claimed for the remedy. Aerial
I am satisfied that a metal aerial was present at the start of the tenancy and when these landlords took over and that at the end of the tenancy it was missing.
The landlord does not know how old it was and has not replaced it.
I make no award in relation to the aerial as I am not satisfied if and when the landlord will replace it (the new tenant does not need it). This part of the claim is dismissed. Bond
The landlord provided evidence that his partner agrees to a change of landlord so that the bond is to held in both names. She agrees he has full authority regarding the property. A change of landlord form, an email confirming this and bank details have been provided.
I am satisfied that the bond may therefore be released to Mr Lennox and have ordered this.
The landlord should immediately file the change of landlord form as filed with the Tribunal with the Bond Centre. Filing fee
Because Christopher Lennox has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5135669 — net $1,265.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10 January 2025	$1,600.00	Rent arrears to 10 January 2025
Window repairs: Repair	$261.50	Window repairs: Repair
Repairs: Gutter replacement	$607.19	Repairs: Gutter replacement
Cleaning	$160.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$210.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,265.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,265.69

Claims and awards for application 5135669 — net $1,265.69 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 10 January 2025

Amount: $1,600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 10 January 2025

Window repairs: Repair

Amount: $261.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Window repairs: Repair

Repairs: Gutter replacement

Amount: $607.19
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Gutter replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $160.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $210.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Madison Elizabeth Leigh must pay Christopher Lennox $1265.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3065004-011) to Christopher Lennox immediately.
The landlord is to file the change of landlord form as provided to the Tribunal dated 24 April 2025 with the Bond Centre.
The claim for a missing TV aerial is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord did not want to pursue the claims for exemplary damages.

Who is the Landlord?

The property was bought by Mr Lennox and his partner with settlement taking place on 8 December 2023. The tenant was already in occupation.
Initially an agent managed the tenancy, but Mr Lennox then took over management of the property himself with his partner. The bond was only lodged in the name of Mr Lennox‘s partner.
I am satisfied that the landlord in this application, Mr Lennox was a landlord with his partner from 8 December 2023 as the evidence shows he was a property owner, received the rent into his account and managed the property.
I am satisfied that Mr Lennox has been the tenant’s landlord from 8 December 2023 and therefore that the application may proceed today in his name.

How much is owed for rent?

I am satisfied that the tenancy ended on 10 January 2025.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims $1600 and while this does not exactly match the records provided, I am satisfied this sum will not result in an overpayment to the landlord (records indicate a slight under claim here).
The amount ordered is proven.

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. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the tenant left a significant amount of rubbish. The landlord says that it took 3 people 2 hours to take all the rubbish to a farm where it was disposed of. There are no dump fees because the rubbish was taken to the farm.
I find it reasonable for the rubbish disposal to have taken 3 people 2 hours each. The rubbish included a number of large bulky items. The landlord did the work himself with his partner and a family member. I find $35 per hour to be a reasonable sum and therefore award $210 for the labour costs of rubbish disposal.
I make no award in relation to the cost sought for dumping the rubbish as the landlord was able to do this at no cost therefore there has been no loss.
The landlord says that the tenant did not return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. He and his partner had to vacuum the carpet, scrub the walls, ceilings, wash windows, clean the oven, get rid of cobwebs and clean the bathroom and kitchen.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises. For example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work.
It is also relevant to note that the onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it. If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.
I am satisfied that the photographs support that the property was not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. However, the limited photographs do not support the extent of the claim. The work described would have more likely than not have taken the premises to a state better than the tenant was required to return it. Based on the evidence provided I award the landlord $160 towards cleaning including the cost of cleaning products.

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. Window
I am satisfied that a back window was broken during the course of the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord has incurred $261.50 in repair costs and I consider this to be reasonable. This sum is ordered.
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. However, I have not depreciated this sum awarded as I do not consider the landlord has had any benefit by the replacement of a windowpane. Guttering
The landlord says that the tenant removed a portion of guttering and a downpipe. A builder’s report shows that it was lead. The landlord says that the tenant reported that there had been damage occurring in a weather event. However, the landlord says it is suspicious as the portion of gutter that has been removed stops at the boundary of the property next door (the property is semi- detached and the landlord also owns the home next door). He thinks that it has been removed to sell for scrap metal. A metal TV aerial is also missing (see below). The guttering and downpipe was not retained by the tenant (so the landlord was not able to repair it using the existing product or observe the damage). Instead, the tenant put up some PVC pipe in just part of the section, which was an insufficient fix. The tenant only told the landlord about this issue when specifically asked about it.
No weather damage occurred to the neighbouring property’s guttering and a builder’s report commissioned just before the purchase of the property did not note any issues with the condition of the guttering other than it needing a clean.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy. I have carefully considered whether the landlord has proven if this is more than fair wear and tear and, given the above circumstances, I find it more likely than not that this is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The guttering and pipe that were removed were likely original (1970s). Now the landlord has new guttering which is PVC but this is only in relation to part of the house, so it does not match the rest of the property or the property they own next door: The landlord now has mismatching guttering.
In this specific situation I consider there has been no betterment to the overall position and award the $607.19 that is claimed for the remedy. Aerial
I am satisfied that a metal aerial was present at the start of the tenancy and when these landlords took over and that at the end of the tenancy it was missing.
The landlord does not know how old it was and has not replaced it.
I make no award in relation to the aerial as I am not satisfied if and when the landlord will replace it (the new tenant does not need it). This part of the claim is dismissed. Bond
The landlord provided evidence that his partner agrees to a change of landlord so that the bond is to held in both names. She agrees he has full authority regarding the property. A change of landlord form, an email confirming this and bank details have been provided.
I am satisfied that the bond may therefore be released to Mr Lennox and have ordered this.
The landlord should immediately file the change of landlord form as filed with the Tribunal with the Bond Centre. Filing fee
Because Christopher Lennox has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135669 — Rent arrears at 17 Essex Street, Stratford, Stratford 4332

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135669 — Rent arrears at 17 Essex Street, Stratford, Stratford 4332

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Who is the Landlord?

How much is owed for rent?

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

Who is the Landlord?

How much is owed for rent?

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