What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5167821 about?

The tribunal order states: Veronica Riches to pay [The landlord/s] $1,602.27 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5167821?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $974.29 awarded to landlord; Rod For The Skylight - By Consent: $89.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167821?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12480194-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5167821 about?

The tribunal order states: Veronica Riches to pay [The landlord/s] $1,602.27 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5167821?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $974.29 awarded to landlord; Rod For The Skylight - By Consent: $89.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167821?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12480194-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

223D Mt Pleasant Road, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5167821 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167821 — net $1,602.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$290.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: includes time and dump fees	$60.00	Rubbish removal: includes time and dump fees
Rod for the skylight - by consent	$89.98	Rod for the skylight - by consent
Repair cables	$161.00	Repair cables
Rent arrears to 9 December 2024 - by consent	$974.29	Rent arrears to 9 December 2024 - by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,602.27
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,602.27

Order

Veronica Riches to pay [The landlord/s] $1,602.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,602.27 Veronica Riches: $557.73

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 tenancy lasted for around four years.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and the tenant agreed she owes the rent.

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

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. Tenants are also required to return any keys. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Cleaning
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. Both parties provided me with photos. I note that tenants are not routinely required to wipe walls and doors at the end of a tenancy. It does not seem reasonable that the tenant pay for the owner’s time to dismantle and reassemble the large garage shelving when the shelves could have been wiped. Further, I am persuaded there was an issue with the toilets which meant they could not be completely cleaned at the end of the tenancy. Taking all this into account I find the tenant did not leave the house reasonably clean and tidy. I have allowed an amount for additional cleaning that seems reasonable to me based on the evidence provided. Cleaning products
The claim for cleaning products is not proved. I cannot be sure from the timing of the purchases that the cleaning products were necessary to bring the house to a reasonable condition. This claim is dismissed. Rubbish
I have allowed the claim for rubbish removal because the tenant left some items behind. I have included the dump fees and some time in the order. Carpet cleaning
The claim for carpet cleaning is not proved. The photos do not support a claim for cleaning and it is hard for the landlord to prove there was smell. This claim is dismissed. Lawns and gardens
The claim for tidying the lawns and gardens is not proved. The landlord’s photos do not support the large claim for gardening. The invoice from the gardener is dated the end of January, weeks after the tenancy ended. The tenant’s photos show a reasonably tidy garden. I am not persuaded by the evidence that the gardens were left in an unreasonable condition. This claim is dismissed. Letter box keys
There is a claim for the keys to a new letter box installed during the tenancy. The tenant said she was never given a copy of the keys. There is no record in the tenancy documentation about the new keys. I find the landlord has not proved the tenant got the keys and the claim is dismissed.

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 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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 blinds
There is a claim for re-cording all but three of the venetian blinds in the house. The landlord submitted the tenant should pay because her pet rabbit was responsible for chewing the cords. The claim also includes cleaning because of an excessive build up of grime and dust. The tenant said the blinds were many years old and the cords just snapped because of sun damage and fair wear and tear.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The blinds were installed in 2010, so they were 14 years old at the end of the tenancy. It seems most likely to me the blinds needed maintenance. The landlord has not proved the damage is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. The tiles
There is a claim for the insurance excess for replacing all the tiles in the ensuite. The landlord was given until 5pm on the day of the hearing to provide written confirmation from the insurer that the claim for new tiles had been accepted. No information was received and this claim is dismissed. Rabbit damage
The claim for $200 to repair carpet damage is not proved because the landlord did not have any evidence of the amount paid. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for repairing cables damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submitted photos and said the damage was most likely due to the rabbit. The tenant said her daughter’s pet rabbit was sometimes inside, but contained. She also said there was a rodent problem at the house and the cables could have been damaged by rodents. I am persuaded that the cables were most likely damaged by a rabbit during the tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice and the claim is proved and allowed. Rimu desk
There is a claim for repairs to the top surface of a built in rimu desk. The landlord provided photos showing indented handwriting on the desk. These marks were not present on the ingoing photos. The landlord said the indentations were careless or intentional damage. The tenant noted that the ingoing inspection report recorded “marks” on the top of the desk. I find the damage is most likely from someone writing on paper while using the desk, which is within the normal use of a desk. I am not persuaded the landlord has proved the damage was more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Door frames
There is claim for removing spongy strips from the internal door frames. The landlord provided me with photos. The tenant said the strips were applied by the property manager’s handyman. I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s submission and evidence, which means this claim is not proved. The claim for the door frames is dismissed. Rod
The tenant agreed to pay for a new skylight rod. Other Orders
The bond will be refunded to both parties as set out in the order. A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
The application filing fee is refunded to the landlord because the landlord is the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed for the same reason.
The tenant did not make an application for suppression. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167821 — net $1,602.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$290.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: includes time and dump fees	$60.00	Rubbish removal: includes time and dump fees
Rod for the skylight - by consent	$89.98	Rod for the skylight - by consent
Repair cables	$161.00	Repair cables
Rent arrears to 9 December 2024 - by consent	$974.29	Rent arrears to 9 December 2024 - by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,602.27
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,602.27

Order

Veronica Riches to pay [The landlord/s] $1,602.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,602.27 Veronica Riches: $557.73

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 tenancy lasted for around four years.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 9 December 2024. The landlord provided rent records and the tenant agreed she owes the rent.

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

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. Tenants are also required to return any keys. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Cleaning
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. Both parties provided me with photos. I note that tenants are not routinely required to wipe walls and doors at the end of a tenancy. It does not seem reasonable that the tenant pay for the owner’s time to dismantle and reassemble the large garage shelving when the shelves could have been wiped. Further, I am persuaded there was an issue with the toilets which meant they could not be completely cleaned at the end of the tenancy. Taking all this into account I find the tenant did not leave the house reasonably clean and tidy. I have allowed an amount for additional cleaning that seems reasonable to me based on the evidence provided. Cleaning products
The claim for cleaning products is not proved. I cannot be sure from the timing of the purchases that the cleaning products were necessary to bring the house to a reasonable condition. This claim is dismissed. Rubbish
I have allowed the claim for rubbish removal because the tenant left some items behind. I have included the dump fees and some time in the order. Carpet cleaning
The claim for carpet cleaning is not proved. The photos do not support a claim for cleaning and it is hard for the landlord to prove there was smell. This claim is dismissed. Lawns and gardens
The claim for tidying the lawns and gardens is not proved. The landlord’s photos do not support the large claim for gardening. The invoice from the gardener is dated the end of January, weeks after the tenancy ended. The tenant’s photos show a reasonably tidy garden. I am not persuaded by the evidence that the gardens were left in an unreasonable condition. This claim is dismissed. Letter box keys
There is a claim for the keys to a new letter box installed during the tenancy. The tenant said she was never given a copy of the keys. There is no record in the tenancy documentation about the new keys. I find the landlord has not proved the tenant got the keys and the claim is dismissed.

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 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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 blinds
There is a claim for re-cording all but three of the venetian blinds in the house. The landlord submitted the tenant should pay because her pet rabbit was responsible for chewing the cords. The claim also includes cleaning because of an excessive build up of grime and dust. The tenant said the blinds were many years old and the cords just snapped because of sun damage and fair wear and tear.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The blinds were installed in 2010, so they were 14 years old at the end of the tenancy. It seems most likely to me the blinds needed maintenance. The landlord has not proved the damage is more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. The tiles
There is a claim for the insurance excess for replacing all the tiles in the ensuite. The landlord was given until 5pm on the day of the hearing to provide written confirmation from the insurer that the claim for new tiles had been accepted. No information was received and this claim is dismissed. Rabbit damage
The claim for $200 to repair carpet damage is not proved because the landlord did not have any evidence of the amount paid. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for repairing cables damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submitted photos and said the damage was most likely due to the rabbit. The tenant said her daughter’s pet rabbit was sometimes inside, but contained. She also said there was a rodent problem at the house and the cables could have been damaged by rodents. I am persuaded that the cables were most likely damaged by a rabbit during the tenancy. The landlord has provided an invoice and the claim is proved and allowed. Rimu desk
There is a claim for repairs to the top surface of a built in rimu desk. The landlord provided photos showing indented handwriting on the desk. These marks were not present on the ingoing photos. The landlord said the indentations were careless or intentional damage. The tenant noted that the ingoing inspection report recorded “marks” on the top of the desk. I find the damage is most likely from someone writing on paper while using the desk, which is within the normal use of a desk. I am not persuaded the landlord has proved the damage was more than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Door frames
There is claim for removing spongy strips from the internal door frames. The landlord provided me with photos. The tenant said the strips were applied by the property manager’s handyman. I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s submission and evidence, which means this claim is not proved. The claim for the door frames is dismissed. Rod
The tenant agreed to pay for a new skylight rod. Other Orders
The bond will be refunded to both parties as set out in the order. A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
The application filing fee is refunded to the landlord because the landlord is the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed for the same reason.
The tenant did not make an application for suppression. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167821 — Rent arrears at 223D Mt Pleasant Road, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167821 — Rent arrears at 223D Mt Pleasant Road, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with her 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