What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248211 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, [The tenant/s] is the only respondent. By consent, the names

How much money was awarded in case 5248211?

Cleaning: $358.30 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,392.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248211?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12255499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5248211 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, [The tenant/s] is the only respondent. By consent, the names

How much money was awarded in case 5248211?

Cleaning: $358.30 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,392.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248211?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12255499-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Olivia Street, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5248211 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5248211 — net $178.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14/05/25	$2,392.87	nt arrears as sought are owing, by consent, I make an order that the tenant pay $2,392.87 in rent arrears.
Cleaning	$358.30	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$178.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$178.17

By consent, [The tenant/s] is the only respondent. By consent, the names of the two other tenants as recorded in the tenancy agreement are removed as respondents in this matter.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (BN-00045346) to Optimal Property Management & Maintenance Limited As Agent For Tigerat Trust immediately.

[The tenant/s] must pay Optimal Property Management & Maintenance Limited As Agent For Tigerat Trust $178.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] (the tenant) and two other family members moved out of 9 Olivia Street, Rolleston (the premises) on 14 May 2025. Although two other tenants are named in the tenancy agreement, Mr Warwood requested any orders made by the Tribunal be made against himself only and the landlord agreed they wish to pursue the claims against Mr Warwood only.

The landlord says, after the tenancy came to an end, the tenant owed rent arrears. The landlord also says the premises was not left reasonably clean, the tenant caused damage to the walls in the hallway and garage and the tenant did not leave the garden tidy or bins empty.

The tenant accepts the amount sought in rent arrears is owing. The tenant disputes that the property was not left reasonably clean and that the tenant is liable for the cost of repairs and garden work.

Given the tenant accepts the rent arrears as sought are owing, by consent, I make an order that the tenant pay $2,392.87 in rent arrears.

The remaining issues for me to determine are: a. Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean? b. Did the tenant cause damage to the walls in the hallway and garage? And if so, are they liable for the cost of repairs? c. Did the tenant fail to leave the exterior of the premises reasonably tidy? Tribunal’s approach to the issues

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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 apply this approach for each issue, discussed separately below.

Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The landlord says on 15 May 2025 they carried out a final inspection. Photographs taken during that inspection show window frames, skirting boards and wardrobe tracks were not left reasonably clean. Photos also show the heat pump filters were not cleaned. The premises was cleaned by a professional cleaner, and an invoice for $716.60 was provided.

The tenant says the premises were left in better condition than when they moved in. However, that is not relevant to the issue I have to determine. 1 The tenant has an obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy, therefore I am only concerned with assessing the cleanliness of the premises at the end of the tenancy.

I am satisfied the landlord has proved the premises were not left reasonably clean. However, I note that a tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.

A professional cleaner is likely to bring a property to a standard that is higher than “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy,” therefore I do not accept the tenant is liable for the full cost of a professional clean.

I consider an appropriate award is half the cost of a professional clean, being $358.30, and make an order for compensation accordingly. Did the tenant cause damage to the walls in the hallway and garage? And if so, are they liable for the cost of repairs?

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 of the Act. 1 If a tenant finds premises are not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy they may issue the landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy. It does not impact the tenant’s obligations under s40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.

The landlord says the tenant damaged the walls in the hallway, two bedrooms, kitchen and garage door. The landlord referred to photographs taken during the final inspection on 15 May 2025.

The landlord did not file evidence to show the condition of these parts of the premises prior to the start of this tenancy.

The tenant says the damage was there before they moved in and was not caused by the tenant.

As the landlord has not filed evidence to show the condition of the interior walls prior to the start of the tenancy the landlord has not proved the damage was caused during the tenancy.

I dismiss the claim for compensation for wall repairs. Did the tenant fail to leave the exterior of the premises reasonably tidy

As stated above, at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy – that includes both the interior and exterior of the property. 2

The landlord says the garden was not weeded and there were cigarette butts in the bark in the garden. The landlord referred to photographs taken during the final inspection on 15 May 2025.

The tenant denies leaving the garden in an untidy state.

I am not satisfied the photographs taken during the final inspection on 15 May 2025 show the gardens were not reasonably tidy. The lawns appear to have been mowed relatively recently. While there are a few weeds at the edges of the lawns and at the base of a brick wall edge by concrete, I do not consider a few weeds means the premises were not “reasonably tidy.” The red-lidded rubbish bin had rubbish in it, however I do not see that as unreasonable – it would be collected by the local council if left kerbside on collection day.

Even if I was wrong, and the photos could be said to show the garden and bins were not “reasonably tidy,” the landlord has not provided proof of the cost incurred to remedy those matters. One invoice was provided for the total cost of a handyman attending for one afternoon to remedy the damaged walls, and also tidy the garden and bins. The landlord has not proved how much time, and therefore how much cost was incurred, in relation to the exterior work only.

For these reasons, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for exterior work. 2 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5248211 — net $178.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14/05/25	$2,392.87	nt arrears as sought are owing, by consent, I make an order that the tenant pay $2,392.87 in rent arrears.
Cleaning	$358.30	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$178.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$178.17