What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5247992 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 5247992?

Cleaning: $570.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Fridge: $1,125.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247992?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12152123-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5247992 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 5247992?

Cleaning: $570.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Fridge: $1,125.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247992?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12152123-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 36, 1 Centennial Drive, Whitianga, Whitianga Tenancy Tribunal Case 5247992 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5247992 — net $1,722.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$570.00	Cleaning
Replace fridge	$1,125.00	Replace fridge
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,722.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,722.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay M H Realty Limited T/A Bayleys Whitianga $1,722.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Randell, representing the landlord, and the tenant both attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 21 February 2025.
The landlord made a new claim to supply and install a TV Freeview box at the end of the tenancy, but then withdrew this claim during the hearing.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord said the tenant left some decomposing food in the fridge, which had gone down the vents and created a strong stench, attracting flies.
The landlord said they had to retain a cleaner in the amount of $570.00 to return to the property over several visits to attempt to clean the fridge and remove the strong odour from the fridge. The landlord provided a cleaning invoice for $570.00.
The tenant acknowledged he had left the food in the fridge and agreed to pay the full amount of $570.00 claimed for cleaning by the landlord. Keys
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. The landlord said it cost them $207.00 to change the locks and provided an invoice in this amount.
The tenant said he had emailed the previous property manager dealing with the tenancy property, either on 20 th or 21 st February 2025, just after he left the property, to let her know he had left the keys in the letterbox. The tenant disputed this claim and said there was no need for the landlord to have got the locks changed as the keys were sitting in the letterbox, as notified by him.
The property manager said she did not have access to the email correspondence with the previous property manager and that she was going off a handwritten note on the file left that the tenant had not left the keys. She said she had conducted a final inspection on 27 February 2025 and had not checked the letterbox at that time, so she did not know whether the keys were in there.
The landlord did not provide an Entry Inspection Report or an Exit Inspection Report that would indicate the keys that the tenant was given at the start of the tenancy or would note whether keys were returned by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The onus is on the landlord to prove their claim.
I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their claim for the cost of replacing the locks and so dismiss this claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord said the fridge had to be replaced as the decomposing food left by the tenant, and its strong odour following this, meant that the fridge could not continue to be used.
The landlord initially claimed $1,948.00 to replace the fridge. During the hearing, the parties reached agreement that the tenant would pay the landlord $1,125.00 to replace the fridge, which included delivery, installation of the new fridge and disposal of the old fridge. The parties considered the issue of depreciation in this discussion, as the landlord was unsure as to the age of the old fridge.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
As the landlord has been mostly successful with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant cooperated with the landlord to the degree he believed reasonable, in agreeing to pay for two of the landlord’s three claims, despite the landlord not providing any inspection reports or photographs in support of their claim. In the circumstances, and given the evidence, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing the tenant’s name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5247992 — net $1,722.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$570.00	Cleaning
Replace fridge	$1,125.00	Replace fridge
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,722.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,722.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay M H Realty Limited T/A Bayleys Whitianga $1,722.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Randell, representing the landlord, and the tenant both attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 21 February 2025.
The landlord made a new claim to supply and install a TV Freeview box at the end of the tenancy, but then withdrew this claim during the hearing.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord said the tenant left some decomposing food in the fridge, which had gone down the vents and created a strong stench, attracting flies.
The landlord said they had to retain a cleaner in the amount of $570.00 to return to the property over several visits to attempt to clean the fridge and remove the strong odour from the fridge. The landlord provided a cleaning invoice for $570.00.
The tenant acknowledged he had left the food in the fridge and agreed to pay the full amount of $570.00 claimed for cleaning by the landlord. Keys
The landlord said the tenant did not return the keys. The landlord said it cost them $207.00 to change the locks and provided an invoice in this amount.
The tenant said he had emailed the previous property manager dealing with the tenancy property, either on 20 th or 21 st February 2025, just after he left the property, to let her know he had left the keys in the letterbox. The tenant disputed this claim and said there was no need for the landlord to have got the locks changed as the keys were sitting in the letterbox, as notified by him.
The property manager said she did not have access to the email correspondence with the previous property manager and that she was going off a handwritten note on the file left that the tenant had not left the keys. She said she had conducted a final inspection on 27 February 2025 and had not checked the letterbox at that time, so she did not know whether the keys were in there.
The landlord did not provide an Entry Inspection Report or an Exit Inspection Report that would indicate the keys that the tenant was given at the start of the tenancy or would note whether keys were returned by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The onus is on the landlord to prove their claim.
I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their claim for the cost of replacing the locks and so dismiss this claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord said the fridge had to be replaced as the decomposing food left by the tenant, and its strong odour following this, meant that the fridge could not continue to be used.
The landlord initially claimed $1,948.00 to replace the fridge. During the hearing, the parties reached agreement that the tenant would pay the landlord $1,125.00 to replace the fridge, which included delivery, installation of the new fridge and disposal of the old fridge. The parties considered the issue of depreciation in this discussion, as the landlord was unsure as to the age of the old fridge.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
As the landlord has been mostly successful with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant cooperated with the landlord to the degree he believed reasonable, in agreeing to pay for two of the landlord’s three claims, despite the landlord not providing any inspection reports or photographs in support of their claim. In the circumstances, and given the evidence, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing the tenant’s name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5247992 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 36, 1 Centennial Drive, Whitianga, Whitianga

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5247992 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 36, 1 Centennial Drive, Whitianga, Whitianga

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions