What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208574 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5208574?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208574?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208574?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11956118-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208574 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5208574?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208574?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208574?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11956118-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208574 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208574 — net $627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
s Compensation for failure to provide property in reasonable state of repair and cleanliness	$600.00	s Compensation for failure to provide property in reasonable state of repair and cleanliness
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$627.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Tenants may terminate the tenancy by giving 30 days notice during the period of the fixed term.
If the Tenants are still living in the property at the end of the fixed term, and the tenancy the becomes a periodic tenancy, either party may terminate the tenancy by giving notice in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Hitesh Bhatt must pay [The tenant/s] $627.00 immediately as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Shannon Northcott and Hannes Griessel.
This tenancy began on 12 March 2025 and was for a six-month fixed term to 12 September 2025. The rent was $700 per week.
The Tenants have been unhappy with the condition of the property from the outset. They seek orders as follows: a. A reduction in the fixed term of the tenancy due to the condition of the property; and b. Compensation in the amount of $733.00 for various costs incurred due to the property not being reasonably clean and in a reasonable state of repair when they moved in.
This is a claim by the Tenants and so they bear the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
There were a large number of documents filed with the Tenants’ claim and a number of photos and videos were viewed during the hearing.
For the sake of brevity I have not have referred to all of the evidence in this decision, but the parties can be assured that I have considered all of the evidence before making this decision. Background
The Tenants say that when they went to view the property other tenants were still living there and it was difficult to gauge the condition of the property. They said that the landlord told them that the current tenants might be moving out earlier than expected and so they might be able to move into the property earlier, but this did not end up happening.
The Tenants explained that when they went to move in they could not even access the property as the key didn’t seem to work. They said that the property manager did come out to assist them but when they gained access they discovered that the garage door opening mechanism was broken, the lawns were overgrown and that there were leaves and overgrown trees, that the property was not clean.
The Tenants wrote to the property manager the same day stating that they were not happy with the condition of the property and listed the issues as follows:
The Tenants said that they could not move into the property and so went to stay with friends for several days. They said that they moved their belongings into a storage unit. They had to eat out during that period and take time off work. They seek compensation in the amount of $733 for the storage unit (minimum period one month), moving truck, meals and general stress and inconvenience, and the filing fee paid for this application. The Tenants provided invoices for the storage unit and moving truck.
The Tenants said that in relation to the most pressing issues that prevented them from moving in: a. the landlord arranged for a cleaner to attend the next day, who cleaned most areas but not all b. the landlord arranged a gardener who came on the second day and mowed the lawns and picked up leaves but did not take away the garden rubbish which was left stacked in the garden. c. the garage door was fixed six days later Reduction of the fixed term
The Tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to the condition of the property.
The landlord explained that they had already offered to end the fixed term of the tenancy and were happy for the Tenants to give 30 days’ notice.
The Tenants agreed to the landlord’s offer at the hearing and so I have made an order by consent.
The fixed term is due to end on 12 September 2025. If the Tenants are still living in the property on that date, and the tenancy becomes periodic, then either party may give notice in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (rather than the 30 days). Compensation sought by Tenants
[The tenant/s]
Section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord must: a. Provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and b. Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tenants say that the previous tenants only moved out the day before. They say that they incurred costs because the property was not ready for them to move into and sought compensation for these costs.
The Landlord said that it is not their usual practice to have new tenants move in the day after the previous tenants move out. They said that they would usually allow three or four days between tenancies to ensure that the property is reasonably clean and tidy and that all maintenance tasks are attended to.
The Landlord said in this case the Tenants were keen to move in as soon as possible and the previous tenants had indicated that they might move out early, but as that did not happen and so there was no time in between the tenancies.
The Landlord accepted that the lawns and garden were not reasonably maintained. They say that the interior of the house was reasonably clean and tidy but that they agreed to have cleaners come to do further cleaining regardless.
The landlord said that the automatic garage door mechanism had failed during the previous tenancy and that it was being repaired but that their contractor was waiting for a part that was on order. They said that there was a manual setting for the door that the previous tenants were using but that just prior to these Tenants moving in the manual setting also malfunctioned. They said that the contractor told them that there was an acceptable “work around” where they could put a screwdriver into the slots in the garage door which would prevent it from being opened. The landlord acknowledged that this was not ideal.
The landlord queried the tenant’s claimed costs. They said that they should not be liable for all of the tenant’s costs incurred when moving into the property. They also said that they the tenant secured storage for a month and they should not be liable for that period. In response, the tenant said that was the shortest period that storage was available. Decision on compensation
Having considered all of the evidence, including photos and video shown at the hearing, I find that: a. The property was reasonably clean and tidy in most respects but that there were areas that required more cleaning (the lawns and garden were not maintained, the extractor fan grate in the bathroom was unclean and the stove top filters were unclean); b. The garage posed a security risk as it was not properly secured until 6 days after the tenancy began.
In my view compensation is best considered in the context of lack of amenity. The proven cleanliness issues were fairly minor individually but it was reasonable for the Tenants not to move in until the property was secure. I do not consider that the “work around” was acceptable, particularly considering the fact that the garage provided access to the house.
As the garage door was not fixed until six days after the tenancy began, and taking into account the other issues, I consider that four days rent should be refunded, being $600.00. Compensation for further issues
The Tenants included evidence about other issues experienced at the property at the hearing (for example the insinkerator not working, the bathroom ceiling having paint coming off and the toilet leaking). However they did not update their claim to include a claim for compensation for those items.
The landlord attended the hearing today prepared to deal with those items in the context of the tenant’s application for the reduction of the fixed term, but not in regard to compensation.
In the circumstances I have not heard the tenant’s claims regarding these issues It was not necessary to consider these issues as the parties have agreed to reduce the fixed term. If the Tenants wish to claim compensation for ongoing issues, or issues that arose during the tenancy, then they may file another claim so that those issues can be heard. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
As the Tenants are the substantially successful party they are entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5208574 — net $627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
s Compensation for failure to provide property in reasonable state of repair and cleanliness	$600.00	s Compensation for failure to provide property in reasonable state of repair and cleanliness
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$627.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Tenants may terminate the tenancy by giving 30 days notice during the period of the fixed term.
If the Tenants are still living in the property at the end of the fixed term, and the tenancy the becomes a periodic tenancy, either party may terminate the tenancy by giving notice in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Hitesh Bhatt must pay [The tenant/s] $627.00 immediately as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Shannon Northcott and Hannes Griessel.
This tenancy began on 12 March 2025 and was for a six-month fixed term to 12 September 2025. The rent was $700 per week.
The Tenants have been unhappy with the condition of the property from the outset. They seek orders as follows: a. A reduction in the fixed term of the tenancy due to the condition of the property; and b. Compensation in the amount of $733.00 for various costs incurred due to the property not being reasonably clean and in a reasonable state of repair when they moved in.
This is a claim by the Tenants and so they bear the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
There were a large number of documents filed with the Tenants’ claim and a number of photos and videos were viewed during the hearing.
For the sake of brevity I have not have referred to all of the evidence in this decision, but the parties can be assured that I have considered all of the evidence before making this decision. Background
The Tenants say that when they went to view the property other tenants were still living there and it was difficult to gauge the condition of the property. They said that the landlord told them that the current tenants might be moving out earlier than expected and so they might be able to move into the property earlier, but this did not end up happening.
The Tenants explained that when they went to move in they could not even access the property as the key didn’t seem to work. They said that the property manager did come out to assist them but when they gained access they discovered that the garage door opening mechanism was broken, the lawns were overgrown and that there were leaves and overgrown trees, that the property was not clean.
The Tenants wrote to the property manager the same day stating that they were not happy with the condition of the property and listed the issues as follows:
The Tenants said that they could not move into the property and so went to stay with friends for several days. They said that they moved their belongings into a storage unit. They had to eat out during that period and take time off work. They seek compensation in the amount of $733 for the storage unit (minimum period one month), moving truck, meals and general stress and inconvenience, and the filing fee paid for this application. The Tenants provided invoices for the storage unit and moving truck.
The Tenants said that in relation to the most pressing issues that prevented them from moving in: a. the landlord arranged for a cleaner to attend the next day, who cleaned most areas but not all b. the landlord arranged a gardener who came on the second day and mowed the lawns and picked up leaves but did not take away the garden rubbish which was left stacked in the garden. c. the garage door was fixed six days later Reduction of the fixed term
The Tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to the condition of the property.
The landlord explained that they had already offered to end the fixed term of the tenancy and were happy for the Tenants to give 30 days’ notice.
The Tenants agreed to the landlord’s offer at the hearing and so I have made an order by consent.
The fixed term is due to end on 12 September 2025. If the Tenants are still living in the property on that date, and the tenancy becomes periodic, then either party may give notice in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (rather than the 30 days). Compensation sought by Tenants
[The tenant/s]
Section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the landlord must: a. Provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness; and b. Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The Tenants say that the previous tenants only moved out the day before. They say that they incurred costs because the property was not ready for them to move into and sought compensation for these costs.
The Landlord said that it is not their usual practice to have new tenants move in the day after the previous tenants move out. They said that they would usually allow three or four days between tenancies to ensure that the property is reasonably clean and tidy and that all maintenance tasks are attended to.
The Landlord said in this case the Tenants were keen to move in as soon as possible and the previous tenants had indicated that they might move out early, but as that did not happen and so there was no time in between the tenancies.
The Landlord accepted that the lawns and garden were not reasonably maintained. They say that the interior of the house was reasonably clean and tidy but that they agreed to have cleaners come to do further cleaining regardless.
The landlord said that the automatic garage door mechanism had failed during the previous tenancy and that it was being repaired but that their contractor was waiting for a part that was on order. They said that there was a manual setting for the door that the previous tenants were using but that just prior to these Tenants moving in the manual setting also malfunctioned. They said that the contractor told them that there was an acceptable “work around” where they could put a screwdriver into the slots in the garage door which would prevent it from being opened. The landlord acknowledged that this was not ideal.
The landlord queried the tenant’s claimed costs. They said that they should not be liable for all of the tenant’s costs incurred when moving into the property. They also said that they the tenant secured storage for a month and they should not be liable for that period. In response, the tenant said that was the shortest period that storage was available. Decision on compensation
Having considered all of the evidence, including photos and video shown at the hearing, I find that: a. The property was reasonably clean and tidy in most respects but that there were areas that required more cleaning (the lawns and garden were not maintained, the extractor fan grate in the bathroom was unclean and the stove top filters were unclean); b. The garage posed a security risk as it was not properly secured until 6 days after the tenancy began.
In my view compensation is best considered in the context of lack of amenity. The proven cleanliness issues were fairly minor individually but it was reasonable for the Tenants not to move in until the property was secure. I do not consider that the “work around” was acceptable, particularly considering the fact that the garage provided access to the house.
As the garage door was not fixed until six days after the tenancy began, and taking into account the other issues, I consider that four days rent should be refunded, being $600.00. Compensation for further issues
The Tenants included evidence about other issues experienced at the property at the hearing (for example the insinkerator not working, the bathroom ceiling having paint coming off and the toilet leaking). However they did not update their claim to include a claim for compensation for those items.
The landlord attended the hearing today prepared to deal with those items in the context of the tenant’s application for the reduction of the fixed term, but not in regard to compensation.
In the circumstances I have not heard the tenant’s claims regarding these issues It was not necessary to consider these issues as the parties have agreed to reduce the fixed term. If the Tenants wish to claim compensation for ongoing issues, or issues that arose during the tenancy, then they may file another claim so that those issues can be heard. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
As the Tenants are the substantially successful party they are entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208574 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208574 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions