What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5189112 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5189112?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,132.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Walls: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $902.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5189112?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5189112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12045548-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5189112 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5189112?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,132.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Interior Walls: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $902.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5189112?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5189112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12045548-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5189112 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5189112 — net $2,480.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and rubbish removal	$902.75	Lawns and rubbish removal
Oven/stove cleaning	$50.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Window repairs	$220.00	Window repairs
Repairs: interior walls	$150.00	Repairs: interior walls
Cleaning: exterior wall garage	$25.00	Cleaning: exterior wall garage
Cleaning: driveway	$1,132.25	Cleaning: driveway
Net award	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,480.00

The tenant appeared. The landlords both appeared. The tenancy commenced on 03 February 2024 and ended on 30 November 2024. On 06 February 2025, the landlord filed a claim, followed by a counterclaim filed by the tenant on 06 March 2025. On 30 April 2025, the matters were set down for hearing on 23 May 2025.

The landlord’s claims are that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the grounds in a reasonably tidy condition, ii. Failed to remove all rubbish, iii. Failed to leave the oven reasonably clean. iv. Is responsible for following damage: a. Water tank (contamination) b. Window in the garage c. Walls of the main house d. Guttering e. Sky dish f. Interior and exterior walls of garage g. Driveway

The tenant’s claims are that the landlord: i. Failed to provide and maintain an adequate means for the collection and storage of water, ii. Interfered with their reasonable peace comfort and privacy.

The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case each party must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) Property description

The property is rural, is ten years old and comprises a kitchen, open plan dining / lounge, three bedrooms, a bathroom, laundry, and an external double garage. The property is located at the bottom of a shared driveway leading to the landlord’s house approximately 100 metres further up.

Initially, the tenant resided at the property with their partner and young children. Unfortunately, the tenants partner passed away on about 12 September 2024. Tenant’s claims

The property is not connected to a council (reticulated) water supply. Water is collected via gutters on the roof and stored in a tank nearby, from which it is pumped into the house. There is a filter to the tap used for drinking water in the kitchen.

The tenant states that when they moved into the property the tank was empty. The landlord paid to have the tank filled. The tenant states the water contractor told them that the tank needed cleaning. The tenant advised the landlord, but nothing was done. The water ran out and the tenant arranged for filling. They state the water contractor again told the tenant that the tank required cleaning. Again, they state they advised the landlord but that no action was taken. The tenant states there was a broken pipe on the guttering which likely affected water collection which was not addressed by the landlord. The tenant states that in early November 2024, a young child staying at the property became unwell and required hospitalisation. The tenant attributed the illness to contaminated water. Landlord’s reply

The landlord has provided a written response to all of the tenant’s claims.

The landlord stated the tank had been serviced and cleaned about two years prior to the tenancy and believed that cleaning was only necessary every five years. They state that shortly after the tank was filled at the beginning of the tenancy, they had received a call from the tenant stating that the water tasted funny. The landlord responded that newly filled tanks usually required time to settle, which may affect the taste but not the quality of the water. The landlord stated that there had been no other reports concerning the water. They stated that the first they had become aware that a child had become ill was from a Facebook post by the tenant but noted that there was no evidence supporting the tenants claim about the nature or cause of the unwellness. The landlord stated that they had not been informed about the broken pipe and discovered it at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord stated that following the passing of the tenant’s partner many visitors had stayed at the property exceeding the tanks capacity. The landlord states that during the tenancy they discovered the tenant was burning rubbish in a 44-gallon drum close to the property, and on one occasion been forced to enter the grounds and douse the flames fearing damage to the house. At the end of the tenancy, they had the tank cleaned and were advised by the contractor that it contained plastic, and other debris from the fire which had settled on the roof and made its way into the tank.

The tenant denies overcrowding, and states between 12 September 2024 and 30 October 2024, while many people had visited, only about six people had stayed at the property overnight. The tenant acknowledged burning rubbish but denied that it was so close to the house that it posed a risk, although they accepted that smoke would have passed over the roof. Law

Under section 45(1) (b) the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. Under section 45(1) (ca) landlords must provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated (mains) water supply.

They are not obliged to actually provide the tenant water itself. An adequate means for the collection and storage of water includes sufficient storage capacity, a functioning method of collecting water (e.g. roofs and guttering), storage that is free from contamination, a system for transmitting the water into and around the house, and treatment, such as filtration, of water that is intended for drinking.

Under section 40 the Act a tenant must report any defects to the landlord, who should then investigate and take appropriate action. Failure to investigate and remedy defects or to do so in a reasonable time period may result on a breach of the Act. Decision

Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has failed to meet their obligations. There has been no analysis of the water. While the tenant described the water as murky no photographs have been provided on which to make an objective assessment. Apart from the Facebook post, which is not necessarily directed at the landlord, there is no other record of the issues being raised. There is no evidence confirming that the child’s unwellness was caused by the water. There are no photographs showing the inside of the tank at the end of the tenancy. However, the tenant acknowledged burning rubbish, and it is possible that debris settled on the roof and entered the tank. The claim is dismissed. Interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy.

The tenant states that on the evening of 23 September 2024, during their partners tangi, the landlord sent gang members to the property in an attempt to intimidate and remove them from the property. The tenant states that five males, one of them who she believed to be the son of the landlord, who the others called “[ redacted],” stood at the front gate to the property and said they should leave. The tenant stated that they called the police who were aware of the tangi, but as soon as they mentioned gangs they became disinterested. The tenant states the next day they went to the landlord’s house and asked why they had sent people to the property to evict them. The tenant states the male landlord laughed and said, “wouldn’t you like to know, that shut you up.” The tenant took this as acknowledgement of the landlord’s involvement. The tenant stated that they had since spoken with a male who admitted to being one of the group who had said they had been sent by the landlord.

The tenant called Ms [ redacted] who stated that she had been at the property on the day in question and that around 8pm five males had appeared at the front gate, some wearing gang colours, and others wearing balaclavas. She overheard one of the males state, “we are here to evict you for being in rent arrears.” Ms [ redacted] stated that there were a number of people at the property including women and children. She states that she heard someone say that the police had been called. About half an hour later more friends of the tenant arrived, and the males left. Ms [ redacted] stated that she did not recognise any of them and had not seen them since. Ms [ redacted] states that she was aware that the tenant had gone to the landlord’s house the next day.

Although they could not provide any dates or times, the tenant further stated that between 12 September 2024 and the end of the month, the landlord had been to the property numerous times without permission, released the tenant’s dogs, and had been witnessed at the property by a neighbour taking photographs.

The tenant further stated that the landlord had entered their property and threatened their friends who had been working on a vehicle in the driveway, had been onto the property and poured water on a fire lit by an associate of the tenant, and had CCTV cameras pointed at the property. Landlord’s reply

The landlord denied the allegations concerning the intimidation, stating the claim was fabricated. They denied sending anyone to the property to threaten or intimidate the tenant or that the tenant had visited their house to complain. The landlord denied that they had a son named “[ redacted] ” The landlord produced photographs showing people wearing gang colours doing burnouts at a nearby intersection before congregating at the property. The landlord argued that had the incident occurred, it could have been recorded by any number of people at the property including the tenant and Ms [ redacted].

The landlord accepted that they had visited the property around early October 2024 and taken photographs from outside the fence for a Tribunal application they had filed on 22 October 2024, in which they sought termination for failing to remedy a breach notice for rent arrears, maintain the property reasonably clean, over occupancy and removal of dogs. On 21 November 2024, the Tribunal awarded rent arrears only, and noted that the landlord had served a 63 day notice to end the tenancy, and that both parties acknowledged the tenancy would end on 30 November 2024.

The landlord stated that after the passing of the tenant’s partner, they had visited the property to offer support and had looked after the tenant’s young children.

The landlord accepted that they had entered the grounds to extinguish a fire fearing it might damage property.

The landlord denied releasing the tenant’s dogs, stating they had found them wandering and had returned them to the property.

The landlord stated that the driveway was new at the commencement of the tenancy, but that the tenant had caused extensive oil staining. The landlord acknowledged that they had spoken to people working on a car in the driveway who were doing so without ground protection.

The tenant described themselves and their deceased partner as car enthusiasts. Both parties appear to share a common interest in cars and deny any gang involvement. The tenant stated that their partner was popular amongst the car enthusiast community and many like-minded people attended his tangi, and that some had performed burn outs on the road outside.

The tenant stated that the enthusiasts approached by the landlord had been undertaking repairs that would not cause damage to the driveway, although they accepted that some of the enthusiasts who visited had likely contributed to oil staining on the driveway. Law

Section 38(1) of the Act provides that the tenant shall be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, though, or under the landlord or having superior title of the landlord.

Section 38(2) of the Act states that a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.

The common law covenant for quiet enjoyment was set out in the case of Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499 (CA) in which Pearson LJ stated at 511: The implied covenant for quiet enjoyment is not an absolute covenant protecting a tenant against eviction or interference by anybody but is a qualified covenant protecting the tenant against interference with the tenant’s quiet and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises by the landlord or persons claiming through or under the landlord. The basis of it is that the landlord, by letting the premises, confers on the tenant the right of possession during the term and impliedly promises not to interfere with the tenant’s exercise and use of the right of possession during the term. I think the word ‘enjoy’ used in this connection is a translation from the Latin word ‘fruor’ and refers to the exercise and use of the right and having the full benefit of it, rather than to derive pleasure from it.

In Lucas v Patterson [2005] DCR 76 the Court considered that the common law convent, enshrined by section 38(1) of the Act, had been widened in section 38(2) with the inclusion of references to peace, comfort, and privacy.

In Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated, “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents”.

An interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

The question as to whether a tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy has been significantly impacted by the actions of the landlord will involve an objective assessment of the facts. Decision

Both parties took the promise to tell the truth. This is a tenant said versus landlord said situation. The landlord denies the allegation. The only corroborating evidence is that of Ms [ redacted] which I approach with caution due to her relationship with the tenant. I accept the landlord’s submission that, given the common use of cellphones to record and post incidents on social media, it was highly unusual that no one at the property, and it appears there were a number of mourners, recorded the incident on their cellphone.

The landlord denies having a son called [ redacted] , and the male who allegedly admitted to being involved has not provided a statement.

The tenant acknowledged that the landlord had looked after one of their young children.

Having reasonable grounds to fear that the fire may cause property damage, I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the landlord enter and extinguish the fire. Similarly, in relation to the damage to the driveway, I am satisfied it was reasonable for the landlord to stop and ask those working on the vehicle to take steps to prevent further damage to the new driveway. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they had not release the dogs, and, in fact returned them to the property after finding them wandering. There is no evidence concerning the CCTV cameras.

The claims that the landlord interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy are dismissed. Landlords’ claims

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove all rubbish.

The Act 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, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The landlord is claiming $902.75 for lawn mowing and rubbish removal, and $150.00 for oven cleaning.

The landlord has produced photographs of the grounds and the oven taken at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant accepts failing to clean the oven, stating that they ran out of time. The landlord completed the cleaning themselves and have based their monetary claim on an estimate they had obtained. Based on the evidence, I award the landlord $50.00 for oven cleaning.

The tenant stated that the lawn area was large, and that, following the passing of their partner it became difficult to maintain. They stated their lawn mower was inadequate and that the lawn had not been mown for about two months. The tenant questioned why the landlord could not have simply mown the lawn with their ride on. The landlord stated that the grass was too long and had items of rubbish strewn throughout, requiring the grass to be cut by hand before being mown several times.

I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the lawns in a reasonable condition and remove all rubbish. Based on the photographic evidence I am satisfied that the amount claimed is reasonable. Damage

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to a window in the garage, walls in the house, guttering, the sky dish, exterior garage wall, and the driveway. The property is presently occupied by a family member. The repairs have not been completed. The landlord has produced a quote for $2,748.00, although it does not include a breakdown of costs.

There is a pre tenancy checklist although it is not completed and has not been signed. There are no photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. However, the landlord claims that the property had been renovated prior to the commencement of the tenancy and was “spotless.” Law

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.

The landlord has insurance for accidental damage, with an excess of $500.00 per claim.

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) of the Act.

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.

In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.

Awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Garage window.

The landlord has produced a photograph of a missing window in the garage, covered by a plastic sheet.

The tenant states that they had a motorbike on a stand inside the garage which fell over and broke the window. They state that it had occurred in September, but they had not advised the landlord.

The damage occurred during the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and is likely the result of carelessness. The cost of replacing a standard sized window is approximately $220.00. Internal walls of garage

The landlord has produced photographs showing the internal walls of the garage, which are lined with plywood. The landlord states that the tenant kept dogs in the garage for extended periods, and, at the end of the tenancy, used a water blaster to clean the floor and walls, resulting in damage.

The tenant stated that they had only kept one dog in the garage and not for extended periods. Although they admitted using a water blaster, they denied that it had caused damage, noting the landlord’s photographs had been taken while the walls were still damp and would dry out. The tenant also denied responsibility for staining on the lower parts of the panels, claiming it was pre- existing.

The onus is on the landlord to establish any damage claimed has occurred during the tenancy. As stated, there are no photographs of the property from the start of the tenancy on which to make an objective assessment. Further, the photographs do not show any damage to the walls, or the floor caused by cleaning. The claim for damage to interior walls is dismissed. Interior walls house

The landlord has produced photographs showing three separate areas of damage to walls in the house. The damage consists of drawings, likely made by one of the tenant’s young children. The landlord states they cannot be removed by cleaning and will require painting over. The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage. As the quote provided does not include a cost breakdown the Tribunal must estimate reasonable compensation. Based on the evidence, I award the landlord $150.00 to repaint the affected areas. Guttering and sky dish

The landlord states the dish was six years old and undamaged at the start of the tenancy. The landlord states that during the tangi, which lasted two weeks, the tenant had erected a gazebo that likely blew over, causing the damage to the guttering and Sky dish.

The tenant states that the dish was damaged at the start of the tenancy and denied that the gazebo had blown over. They also stated they did not have Sky or watch television, instead using streaming services, and therefore did not bother to raise the issue with the landlord.

The landlord is unable to provide evidence concerning the damaged guttering. Regarding the Sky dish there is insufficient evidence to make an objective before and after comparison. The claims are dismissed. Damage to exterior wall.

The landlord has produced photographs showing oil splashes on the rear exterior wall of the garage, which is constructed from aluminium. The landlord has also produced photographs showing two used oil filters on the ground nearby. No attempt has yet been made and the splash may be removable.

The tenant states that the splash was accidental and that the marks could be removed with degreaser. There is insufficient evidence to determine that the oil splash constitutes damage. I am however satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the wall reasonably clean and tidy. On that basis, I award the landlord $25.00 to clean the area. Water tank

Due to the proximity of the tenant’s burn drum to the house and guttering, the landlord arranged for cleaning of the water tank which cost $316.00. The contractors invoice states: “Water tank drain and clean due to contamination from burnt plastic in tank.” The tenant questions the claim, noting there are photographs showing the debris concerned, and that the plastic could have been in the tank prior to the tenancy.

The landlord also claims that having been provided with a full tank at the commencement of the tenancy, the tenant was obliged to return the tank full, when they vacated. The landlord alleges the tenant had deliberately left the main tap open draining the tank. The tenant denies draining the tank. As stated, the landlord is not responsible for providing the water themselves, and although the landlord did so, there is no evidence that the parties agreed that the tenant would compensate the landlord. Both of the water related claims are dismissed. Driveway

The driveway was new at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has produced photographs showing extensive oil staining on the tenant’s section of the driveway. The landlord has produced photographs showing various vehicles parked on the driveway, and also state they had witnessed vehicle repairs being undertaken without drip protection. The landlord states they have received quote to clean the driveway. The quote produced however warns that any oil stains will not be completely removed but may be lightened.

No cleaning has been attempted. The landlord has produced a quote to replace the tenant’s section for $18,860.00 (the entire driveway cost over $27,000.00). The landlord states the damage is not covered by their insurance, as it was not sudden or accidental.

The source of the stains is not disputed. The tenant accepted that vehicles had been repaired in the driveway.

However, the tenant disputes the timing of the landlord’s photographs stating that they had been taken before they had water blasted the driveway on 29 and 30 November 2024. The landlord produced a cellphone log confirming the photographs had been taken on 01 December 2024.

The tenant states that the stains would fade with time and could likely be removed using cleaning products. They named two products they would have used but stated that they did not have time at the end of the tenancy. The tenant states that they had recently been to the property and observed that the darker stains had already started to fade. The tenant claimed that the current tenants had sent them a video, but they were unable to produce it.

I am satisfied that the staining constitutes damage that occurred during the course of the tenancy. The stains are not fair wear and tear and are the result of carelessness.

Compensation awarded should be reasonable. The damage is cosmetic and does not affect the functioning of the driveway. No chemical cleaning has yet been attempted. In my view, replacing the section of driveway is disproportionate. I award the landlord $1,132.25 as reasonable compensation to remove the stains. Costs

As the landlord has been substantially successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord states that they took the bond but did not lodge it as they had been waiting for the tenant’s partner to complete their portion of the bond form. It is unclear why, as the tenant’s partner was not a party to the tenancy. The award made in favour of the landlord is to be deducted from the bond. Name suppression.

Both parties seek name suppression

Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Act (the “Act”) provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

Globally assessed the Tribunal finds that both parties have been substantially successful in these proceedings, and both are entitled to name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5189112 — net $2,480.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and rubbish removal	$902.75	Lawns and rubbish removal
Oven/stove cleaning	$50.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Window repairs	$220.00	Window repairs
Repairs: interior walls	$150.00	Repairs: interior walls
Cleaning: exterior wall garage	$25.00	Cleaning: exterior wall garage
Cleaning: driveway	$1,132.25	Cleaning: driveway
Net award	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,480.00