What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5239033?

The tribunal order states: Caron Andre Petersen must pay Homes4rent Limited $6,621.51 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5239033?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,364.29 awarded to landlord; Water Blasting Of Patio: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,850.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5239033?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5239033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12053170-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5239033?

The tribunal order states: Caron Andre Petersen must pay Homes4rent Limited $6,621.51 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5239033?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,364.29 awarded to landlord; Water Blasting Of Patio: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,850.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5239033?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5239033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12053170-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Ohau Court, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5239033 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5239033 — net $6,621.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 May 2025	$6,364.29	Rent arrears to 18 May 2025
Water rates	$2,850.22	Water rates
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00	Lawns and Garden work
Water blasting of patio	$80.00	Water blasting of patio
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,621.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,621.51

Order

Caron Andre Petersen must pay Homes4rent Limited $6,621.51 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (6197263-003) to Homes4rent Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The tenant contacted the Tribunal on the morning of the hearing advising that they were unable to attend. The tenant provided a brief outline of their response to the landlord’s claims, which I have considered as part of my decision. With the tenant’s consent, a copy of their email was provided to the landlord for comment.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord claims the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy on 28 April 2025 and vacated the premises on this date. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord seeks rent arrears up to 18 May 2025, which is 21 days after the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $6,364.29 up to 18 May 2025.
As this was a periodic tenancy, the tenant was required to give 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy. 1 The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $6,364.29 up to 18 May 2025.

WATER RATES

The landlord claims the tenant owes $2,850.22 in outstanding water rates. The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from Watercare issued between 24 May 2024 and 26 May 2025.
The tenant’s email alluded to a hidden water leak at the premises. The landlord denies there has ever been a leak at the premises.
The landlord claims that the tenant’s water usage has always been high since the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that they brought up the fact that the first water rates invoice was high and the tenant advised the landlord that they have three daughters who take long showers.
The landlord gave evidence that they sent a plumber to the premises on more than one occasion and no leak was detected.
The landlord submitted a water rates invoice dated 18 June 2025. This invoice is based upon an actual water meter reading and covers the period from 16 May 2025 – 17 June 2025. This invoice indicates no water usage between these dates. The landlord claims no one lived in the premises during this timeframe and the fact that no water was consumed between 16 May 2025 and 17 June 2025 proves there was no water leak at the premises.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced a water leak contributed to the tenant’s water usage during the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for $2,850.22. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

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. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 51(2A). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1998, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v).
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7
The term “premises”, includes “any land and appurtenances other than facilities.” 8 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Cleaning:$150.00 b. Lawns & garden maintenance:$714.87 c. Patio water blasting:$80.00
The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the lawns and gardens were overgrown, especially down the side of the house. The landlord had the lawns and garden attended to on 29 April 2025 and again on 20 May 2025. The landlord claims that they attended to the lawns and garden immediately after the tenant vacated the premises to try to re-tenant the premises as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the landlord’s efforts were unsuccessful and they needed to mow the lawns again shortly after the expiry of the notice period given by the tenant.
For the work completed on 29 April 2025, the landlord submitted an invoice for $667.37. For the work completed on 20 May 2025, the landlord submitted an invoice for $47.50.
The landlord claims that although the inside of the premises appears reasonably clean and tidy in the photographs, the floors were not vacuumed. The landlord also claims there was dust and cobwebs on the skirting boards and the bathroom drains were full of hair. The landlord submitted photographs of this. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant left personal belongings inside the premises, which were not retrieved and the landlord had to organise removal.
The landlord also claims that the outdoor patio was covered in slime and moss and needed to be water blasted.
In their email, the tenant claims they cleaned the premises and organised for friends to remove their belongings. The tenant also claims the state of the outdoor patio is a result of fair wear and tear.
The tenant claims that the first invoice of $667.37 for lawns and garden maintenance is excessive. Analysis – lawns and garden
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs of the lawns and garden prove the lawns were overgrown and full of weeds. The garden was not maintained and needed tidying. There is a small area on the side of the house that was particularly overgrown with long grass.
The photographs of the patio show a large, dark mark on the concrete. I agree with the landlord’s submission that the patio does not appear to have received any maintenance during the tenancy and was slippery with moss.
The Tribunal seeks numerous applications for compensation for lawns and garden maintenance. I agree with the tenant’s submission that $667.37 for the first invoice appears high. The lawn and garden area is not particularly large and the extent to which the lawns and garden were overgrown was not huge.
Considering the size of the outdoor area, as well as the state of the lawns and garden in the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find $350.00 to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation the tenant should pay the landlord for attending the lawns and garden on 29 April 2025 and 20 May 2025.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for lawns and garden maintenance is granted for $350.00.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $80.00 to waterblast the patio is granted in full. Analysis – internal cleaning
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not leave the inside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Whilst the premises appear clean and tidy in the photographs, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the floors were not vacuumed. It is also apparent that the tenant did not clean the drains in the shower, which had a lot of hair in them. A significant amount of the tenant’s personal belongings were also left at the premises, including black rubbish bags and five blow up beds. I accept the landlord’s evidence that these belongings were not removed by the tenant’s friend and the landlord had to organise disposal of the items.
The landlord’s claim for $150.00 to clean the inside of the premises is granted in full.

FILING FEE

Because Homes4rent Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5239033 — net $6,621.51 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 May 2025	$6,364.29	Rent arrears to 18 May 2025
Water rates	$2,850.22	Water rates
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00	Lawns and Garden work
Water blasting of patio	$80.00	Water blasting of patio
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,621.51
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,621.51

Order

Caron Andre Petersen must pay Homes4rent Limited $6,621.51 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (6197263-003) to Homes4rent Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The tenant contacted the Tribunal on the morning of the hearing advising that they were unable to attend. The tenant provided a brief outline of their response to the landlord’s claims, which I have considered as part of my decision. With the tenant’s consent, a copy of their email was provided to the landlord for comment.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

RENT ARREARS

The landlord claims the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy on 28 April 2025 and vacated the premises on this date. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord seeks rent arrears up to 18 May 2025, which is 21 days after the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy. The landlord submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears are $6,364.29 up to 18 May 2025.
As this was a periodic tenancy, the tenant was required to give 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy. 1 The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $6,364.29 up to 18 May 2025.

WATER RATES

The landlord claims the tenant owes $2,850.22 in outstanding water rates. The landlord submitted copies of original invoices from Watercare issued between 24 May 2024 and 26 May 2025.
The tenant’s email alluded to a hidden water leak at the premises. The landlord denies there has ever been a leak at the premises.
The landlord claims that the tenant’s water usage has always been high since the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that they brought up the fact that the first water rates invoice was high and the tenant advised the landlord that they have three daughters who take long showers.
The landlord gave evidence that they sent a plumber to the premises on more than one occasion and no leak was detected.
The landlord submitted a water rates invoice dated 18 June 2025. This invoice is based upon an actual water meter reading and covers the period from 16 May 2025 – 17 June 2025. This invoice indicates no water usage between these dates. The landlord claims no one lived in the premises during this timeframe and the fact that no water was consumed between 16 May 2025 and 17 June 2025 proves there was no water leak at the premises.
On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced a water leak contributed to the tenant’s water usage during the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates is granted for $2,850.22. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

The law

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. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 51(2A). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1998, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v).
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7
The term “premises”, includes “any land and appurtenances other than facilities.” 8 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and seeks compensation for the following amounts: a. Cleaning:$150.00 b. Lawns & garden maintenance:$714.87 c. Patio water blasting:$80.00
The landlord submitted invoices for these amounts. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims the lawns and gardens were overgrown, especially down the side of the house. The landlord had the lawns and garden attended to on 29 April 2025 and again on 20 May 2025. The landlord claims that they attended to the lawns and garden immediately after the tenant vacated the premises to try to re-tenant the premises as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the landlord’s efforts were unsuccessful and they needed to mow the lawns again shortly after the expiry of the notice period given by the tenant.
For the work completed on 29 April 2025, the landlord submitted an invoice for $667.37. For the work completed on 20 May 2025, the landlord submitted an invoice for $47.50.
The landlord claims that although the inside of the premises appears reasonably clean and tidy in the photographs, the floors were not vacuumed. The landlord also claims there was dust and cobwebs on the skirting boards and the bathroom drains were full of hair. The landlord submitted photographs of this. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant left personal belongings inside the premises, which were not retrieved and the landlord had to organise removal.
The landlord also claims that the outdoor patio was covered in slime and moss and needed to be water blasted.
In their email, the tenant claims they cleaned the premises and organised for friends to remove their belongings. The tenant also claims the state of the outdoor patio is a result of fair wear and tear.
The tenant claims that the first invoice of $667.37 for lawns and garden maintenance is excessive. Analysis – lawns and garden
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs of the lawns and garden prove the lawns were overgrown and full of weeds. The garden was not maintained and needed tidying. There is a small area on the side of the house that was particularly overgrown with long grass.
The photographs of the patio show a large, dark mark on the concrete. I agree with the landlord’s submission that the patio does not appear to have received any maintenance during the tenancy and was slippery with moss.
The Tribunal seeks numerous applications for compensation for lawns and garden maintenance. I agree with the tenant’s submission that $667.37 for the first invoice appears high. The lawn and garden area is not particularly large and the extent to which the lawns and garden were overgrown was not huge.
Considering the size of the outdoor area, as well as the state of the lawns and garden in the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find $350.00 to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation the tenant should pay the landlord for attending the lawns and garden on 29 April 2025 and 20 May 2025.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for lawns and garden maintenance is granted for $350.00.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $80.00 to waterblast the patio is granted in full. Analysis – internal cleaning
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not leave the inside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Whilst the premises appear clean and tidy in the photographs, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the floors were not vacuumed. It is also apparent that the tenant did not clean the drains in the shower, which had a lot of hair in them. A significant amount of the tenant’s personal belongings were also left at the premises, including black rubbish bags and five blow up beds. I accept the landlord’s evidence that these belongings were not removed by the tenant’s friend and the landlord had to organise disposal of the items.
The landlord’s claim for $150.00 to clean the inside of the premises is granted in full.

FILING FEE

Because Homes4rent Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5239033 — Rent arrears at 3 Ohau Court, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5239033 — Rent arrears at 3 Ohau Court, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

WATER RATES

TENANCY?

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RENT ARREARS

WATER RATES

TENANCY?

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions