What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5249332?

The tribunal order states: Ebony Faye Henry to pay Sandra Burgess $636.00 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5249332?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; By Consent: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5249332?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5249332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12278011-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5249332?

The tribunal order states: Ebony Faye Henry to pay Sandra Burgess $636.00 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5249332?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; By Consent: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5249332?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5249332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12278011-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

160 Toppings Road, Sefton, RD 7, Sefton 7477 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5249332 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5249332 — net $636.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$90.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: by consent	$20.00	Repairs: by consent
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: cooktop	$299.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: cooktop
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$636.00
Bond	$660.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$636.00

Order

Ebony Faye Henry to pay Sandra Burgess $636.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $660.00 (6382562-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Sandra Burgess: $636.00 Ebony Faye Henry: $24.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant made the initial application for her bond to be refunded to her in full following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord made a cross application claiming, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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

The tenancy had been of reasonable length, beginning in September 2020 and ending in April this year. No tenancy agreement was provided and no formal tenancy inspection report with photos was ever completed (either before or during the tenancy).
Three very limited documents purporting to be tenancy condition checklists were provided. Two were filled out on an incorrect form and unsigned but one was on the correct form, dated 22 February 2022 and was signed by the tenant (‘signed 2022 checklist’).
The landlord confirmed that the property had been freshly painted before this tenancy began and that the carpets had been shampooed.
The parties agreed to an inspection on 1 April 2025 by text message “to see what needs to be fix[ed] by us or what needs to be done by you b4 leaving date eg cleaning up rubbish...”. No correspondence or information followed this inspection.
A further inspection was scheduled for the day the tenancy ended, being 25 April 2025. Texts made it clear that the landlord wanted to complete works following the end of the tenancy so that the property could be sold.
The landlord claimed some of the bond which the tenant disputed and followed up with a claim to the Tribunal.
The landlord then made a cross application claiming additional costs for other work following 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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided some photographs to show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The photos provided supported the landlords view but could not justify a full house clean as per the quotation provided.
The landlord had not completed all the cleaning as there were renovations taking place at the property to get it ready for sale.
The landlord acknowledged that part of the renovation included a full renovation of the bathroom which would have made any cleaning in this space redundant.
The quotation also included oven cleaning (for which no evidence was provided) and outside window cleaning which would usually not be the responsibility of the tenant.
In these circumstances, I have reduced the amount from the $596.85 claimed (and quoted) to a more reasonable $200.00.
The tenant acknowledged that she had not collected all the rubbish from the outside of the (semi-rural) property.
She said that she had come back to the property to return keys and remove rubbish on 26 April (the day after the tenancy ended).
Text messages confirm that this visit was to shampoo the carpet and remove rubbish. The tenant confirmed that she did shampoo the carpet.
The tenant said that she had spoken to the landlord’s husband on that date who had told her he would remove the rubbish on her behalf.
The landlord’s husband was not able to appear as a witness, but the landlord said it would not be correct that her husband would have offered to remove what she said was at least two trailer loads of rubbish for the tenant at the landlord’s expense. She said this would involve hours of work.
I consider it more likely than not, given text messages where the tenant referred to returning to remove rubbish, that the tenant was to remove the rubbish at her own cost and did not do so.
The amount claimed ($90.00) is an estimate on the part of the landlord as to the cost of dumping a trailer of rubbish which included bulky and heavy items and is reasonable in the circumstances especially as it includes no allowance for the time it would take to complete this significant work.
The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant accepted responsibility for the replacement costs of two boards of decking timber, being $20.00 and this amount is ordered by consent.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to a fence post, b. Damage to a vehicular gate, c. Damage to the Rockcote cladding d. Damage to the kitchen hob.
All of the damage above is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant said that the fence post was damaged before the tenancy began. She said that she had propped up the damaged post and made other temporary repairs to fencing to make the property secure for her animals.
There is insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to show that this damage occurred during the tenancy. No compensation can be awarded for this alleged damage.
In terms of the vehicular gate, the landlord said that this damage occurred around the very end of the tenancy. She said that the tenant had habitually left the gate pulled closed but not latched. This could then be nudged by the tenant’s car to open presumably without the tenant having to leave her vehicle to open it.
The landlord said that she had latched the gate when the property was handed back and thought the tenant had nudged it with her car which had then caused the gate to break as it was unexpectedly latched.
The tenant denied this had occurred and said that multiple people used the drive, and the gate could have been broken at any time.
In any case, even if the tenant had caused the damage I this way, I do not, in these slightly unusual circumstances find this careless. The tenant used the gate in this way and the landlord was aware of that. It is not careless of the tenant to do this again when it was her habit. Additionally, there is no evidence that she did so when the gate was latched causing it to break. No compensation can be awarded for this alleged damage.
The landlord suggested that the tenant had attached a fly screen to an exterior door causing minor damage to the Rockcote cladding.
The tenant explained that the flyscreen she used was attached to the aluminium frame with tape and Velcro and worked via magnets. She said that it was not fixed to the exterior cladding at all and denied any knowledge of the damage photographed. She thought it may have occurred after the tenancy ended.
The landlord suggested that a previous flyscreen fixing may have caused the damage, but no evidence was provided to support this. In these circumstances, no compensation can be awarded for this alleged damage.
The landlord provided photographs to show that the kitchen hob was cracked significantly in one place and chipped in another.
The tenant said it had been like this throughout the tenancy.
The landlord denied this and said it had been replaced not too long before the tenancy began.
The 2022 checklist supports the landlord’s claim as it is signed by the tenant and does not refer to any damage to the hob. The line marked oven/stove is ticked suggesting good condition. The damage is significant and would almost certainly have been marked on the checklist if it had existed at the time this checklist was completed. It is not noted on either of the other (unsigned) checklists either.
The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
The landlord is claiming the material costs of a very modest hob and has not included any allowance for labour. Although the work has not been completed it will be necessary as the house is to be sold.
The amount ordered, being $299.00 is proved.
As the landlord has partly succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5249332 — net $636.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$90.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: by consent	$20.00	Repairs: by consent
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: cooktop	$299.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: cooktop
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$636.00
Bond	$660.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$636.00

Order

Ebony Faye Henry to pay Sandra Burgess $636.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $660.00 (6382562-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Sandra Burgess: $636.00 Ebony Faye Henry: $24.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant made the initial application for her bond to be refunded to her in full following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord made a cross application claiming, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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

The tenancy had been of reasonable length, beginning in September 2020 and ending in April this year. No tenancy agreement was provided and no formal tenancy inspection report with photos was ever completed (either before or during the tenancy).
Three very limited documents purporting to be tenancy condition checklists were provided. Two were filled out on an incorrect form and unsigned but one was on the correct form, dated 22 February 2022 and was signed by the tenant (‘signed 2022 checklist’).
The landlord confirmed that the property had been freshly painted before this tenancy began and that the carpets had been shampooed.
The parties agreed to an inspection on 1 April 2025 by text message “to see what needs to be fix[ed] by us or what needs to be done by you b4 leaving date eg cleaning up rubbish...”. No correspondence or information followed this inspection.
A further inspection was scheduled for the day the tenancy ended, being 25 April 2025. Texts made it clear that the landlord wanted to complete works following the end of the tenancy so that the property could be sold.
The landlord claimed some of the bond which the tenant disputed and followed up with a claim to the Tribunal.
The landlord then made a cross application claiming additional costs for other work following 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 under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided some photographs to show that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The photos provided supported the landlords view but could not justify a full house clean as per the quotation provided.
The landlord had not completed all the cleaning as there were renovations taking place at the property to get it ready for sale.
The landlord acknowledged that part of the renovation included a full renovation of the bathroom which would have made any cleaning in this space redundant.
The quotation also included oven cleaning (for which no evidence was provided) and outside window cleaning which would usually not be the responsibility of the tenant.
In these circumstances, I have reduced the amount from the $596.85 claimed (and quoted) to a more reasonable $200.00.
The tenant acknowledged that she had not collected all the rubbish from the outside of the (semi-rural) property.
She said that she had come back to the property to return keys and remove rubbish on 26 April (the day after the tenancy ended).
Text messages confirm that this visit was to shampoo the carpet and remove rubbish. The tenant confirmed that she did shampoo the carpet.
The tenant said that she had spoken to the landlord’s husband on that date who had told her he would remove the rubbish on her behalf.
The landlord’s husband was not able to appear as a witness, but the landlord said it would not be correct that her husband would have offered to remove what she said was at least two trailer loads of rubbish for the tenant at the landlord’s expense. She said this would involve hours of work.
I consider it more likely than not, given text messages where the tenant referred to returning to remove rubbish, that the tenant was to remove the rubbish at her own cost and did not do so.
The amount claimed ($90.00) is an estimate on the part of the landlord as to the cost of dumping a trailer of rubbish which included bulky and heavy items and is reasonable in the circumstances especially as it includes no allowance for the time it would take to complete this significant work.
The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant accepted responsibility for the replacement costs of two boards of decking timber, being $20.00 and this amount is ordered by consent.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to a fence post, b. Damage to a vehicular gate, c. Damage to the Rockcote cladding d. Damage to the kitchen hob.
All of the damage above is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant said that the fence post was damaged before the tenancy began. She said that she had propped up the damaged post and made other temporary repairs to fencing to make the property secure for her animals.
There is insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to show that this damage occurred during the tenancy. No compensation can be awarded for this alleged damage.
In terms of the vehicular gate, the landlord said that this damage occurred around the very end of the tenancy. She said that the tenant had habitually left the gate pulled closed but not latched. This could then be nudged by the tenant’s car to open presumably without the tenant having to leave her vehicle to open it.
The landlord said that she had latched the gate when the property was handed back and thought the tenant had nudged it with her car which had then caused the gate to break as it was unexpectedly latched.
The tenant denied this had occurred and said that multiple people used the drive, and the gate could have been broken at any time.
In any case, even if the tenant had caused the damage I this way, I do not, in these slightly unusual circumstances find this careless. The tenant used the gate in this way and the landlord was aware of that. It is not careless of the tenant to do this again when it was her habit. Additionally, there is no evidence that she did so when the gate was latched causing it to break. No compensation can be awarded for this alleged damage.
The landlord suggested that the tenant had attached a fly screen to an exterior door causing minor damage to the Rockcote cladding.
The tenant explained that the flyscreen she used was attached to the aluminium frame with tape and Velcro and worked via magnets. She said that it was not fixed to the exterior cladding at all and denied any knowledge of the damage photographed. She thought it may have occurred after the tenancy ended.
The landlord suggested that a previous flyscreen fixing may have caused the damage, but no evidence was provided to support this. In these circumstances, no compensation can be awarded for this alleged damage.
The landlord provided photographs to show that the kitchen hob was cracked significantly in one place and chipped in another.
The tenant said it had been like this throughout the tenancy.
The landlord denied this and said it had been replaced not too long before the tenancy began.
The 2022 checklist supports the landlord’s claim as it is signed by the tenant and does not refer to any damage to the hob. The line marked oven/stove is ticked suggesting good condition. The damage is significant and would almost certainly have been marked on the checklist if it had existed at the time this checklist was completed. It is not noted on either of the other (unsigned) checklists either.
The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
The landlord is claiming the material costs of a very modest hob and has not included any allowance for labour. Although the work has not been completed it will be necessary as the house is to be sold.
The amount ordered, being $299.00 is proved.
As the landlord has partly succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5249332 — Property damage at 160 Toppings Road, Sefton, RD 7, Sefton 7477

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5249332 — Property damage at 160 Toppings Road, Sefton, RD 7, Sefton 7477

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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