What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5153169?

The tribunal order states: Julie Robb must pay Ap Holdings 2013 Limited $361.41 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5153169?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $27.53 awarded to landlord; Shower Slide: $83.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153169?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11649879-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5153169?

The tribunal order states: Julie Robb must pay Ap Holdings 2013 Limited $361.41 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5153169?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $27.53 awarded to landlord; Shower Slide: $83.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153169?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11649879-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1A Lonsdale Crescent, Rongotai, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153169 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153169 — net $361.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$250.00	7. The tenant evidence was that they had not completed cleaning on the final day of the tenancy.
Cleaning: Cleaning products	$27.53	7. The tenant evidence was that they had not completed cleaning on the final day of the tenancy.
Shower slide	$83.88	Shower slide
Net award	$361.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$361.41

Both parties attended the video hearing.

Prior to the hearing, the tenant applied for an adjournment on the basis that the tenant wished to file a cross application. The application for an adjournment was dismissed. The application had been filed with the Tribunal by the landlord on 31 January 2025. The tenant had been given ample notice of the hearing and copies of the relevant documents had been sent to the tenant at her e-mail address. The tribunal is required to deal with matters expeditiously.

The landlord has applied for compensation, following the end of the tenancy.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord’s evidence was that the tenancy ended on 6 March 2025. The landlord had attempted to arrange a final inspection meeting with the tenant. The landlord went to the premises at 10.00 pm, by which stage the tenant had vacated the premises. The landlord took a number of photographs showing that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy. In particular, the toilet and oven required further cleaning. The landlord had booked cleaners to attend the premises the next day to carry out a “top up” clean to have the premises ready for the next tenants. The cleaners were required to do what the landlord referred to as a “standard clean”. The invoice for cleaning is $250.00 with a further $27.53 for cleaning products.

The tenant evidence was that they had not completed cleaning on the final day of the tenancy. No evidence of any attempt to return to the property either later on in the evening or on any following days was provided. In this matter I prefer the photographic evidence provided by the landlord as sitting out the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The cleaning claim is proven and is reasonable.

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 landlord is insured. The insurance policy carries an excess of $1000.00 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 shower head slide was damaged. The replacement cost is $83.88. The landlord said that the slide head being removed from the wall during the tenancy. The landlord did not know how it had occurred. The tenant said the slide had been installed by the landlord and that it had been “over screwed” into the wall and had fallen off. The tenant did not provide any evidence to suggest that the landlord had been informed of the damage at any time. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord said that a towel rail had being torn off the wall. The replacement cost was $64.60. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord said that the towel rail was more than 12 years old. 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 item at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The age of the item means that when depreciation is considered, it has no ongoing value and the claim is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153169 — net $361.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$250.00	7. The tenant evidence was that they had not completed cleaning on the final day of the tenancy.
Cleaning: Cleaning products	$27.53	7. The tenant evidence was that they had not completed cleaning on the final day of the tenancy.
Shower slide	$83.88	Shower slide
Net award	$361.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$361.41

Order

Julie Robb must pay Ap Holdings 2013 Limited $361.41 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
Prior to the hearing, the tenant applied for an adjournment on the basis that the tenant wished to file a cross application. The application for an adjournment was dismissed. The application had been filed with the Tribunal by the landlord on 31 January 2025. The tenant had been given ample notice of the hearing and copies of the relevant documents had been sent to the tenant at her e-mail address. The tribunal is required to deal with matters expeditiously.
The landlord has applied for compensation, following the end of the tenancy.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s evidence was that the tenancy ended on 6 March 2025. The landlord had attempted to arrange a final inspection meeting with the tenant. The landlord went to the premises at 10.00 pm, by which stage the tenant had vacated the premises. The landlord took a number of photographs showing that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy. In particular, the toilet and oven required further cleaning. The landlord had booked cleaners to attend the premises the next day to carry out a “top up” clean to have the premises ready for the next tenants. The cleaners were required to do what the landlord referred to as a “standard clean”. The invoice for cleaning is $250.00 with a further $27.53 for cleaning products.
The tenant evidence was that they had not completed cleaning on the final day of the tenancy. No evidence of any attempt to return to the property either later on in the evening or on any following days was provided. In this matter I prefer the photographic evidence provided by the landlord as sitting out the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The cleaning claim is proven and is reasonable.

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 landlord is insured. The insurance policy carries an excess of $1000.00 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 shower head slide was damaged. The replacement cost is $83.88. The landlord said that the slide head being removed from the wall during the tenancy. The landlord did not know how it had occurred. The tenant said the slide had been installed by the landlord and that it had been “over screwed” into the wall and had fallen off. The tenant did not provide any evidence to suggest that the landlord had been informed of the damage at any time. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord said that a towel rail had being torn off the wall. The replacement cost was $64.60. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord said that the towel rail was more than 12 years old. 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 item at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The age of the item means that when depreciation is considered, it has no ongoing value and the claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153169 — Cleanliness at 1A Lonsdale Crescent, Rongotai, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153169 — Cleanliness at 1A Lonsdale Crescent, Rongotai, Wellington 6022

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions