How much money was awarded in case 5253599?

Cleaning: $1,115.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Move Goods To Secure Storage: $634.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Reglaze 3 Windows: $322.63 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $535.00 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5253599?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5253599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12134126-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5253599?

Cleaning: $1,115.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Move Goods To Secure Storage: $634.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Reglaze 3 Windows: $322.63 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $535.00 awarded to landlord; Storage Costs: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5253599?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5253599?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12134126-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5253599 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5253599 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5253599 — net $5,843.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Reglaze 3 windows	$322.63	Reglaze 3 windows
Compensation for damage to walls	$500.00	Compensation for damage to walls
Repair broken window frame	$140.00	Repair broken window frame
Lawns and garden work	$210.00	Lawns and garden work
Cleaning; moving goods to garage; carpet cleaning	$1,115.50	Cleaning; moving goods to garage; carpet cleaning
Move goods to secure storage	$634.88	Move goods to secure storage
Rubbish removal	$535.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee on warrant for possession	$258.00	Filing fee on warrant for possession
Storage costs	$2,100.00	Storage costs
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$5,843.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,843.01

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] must pay Angela Jean Willans $5,843.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The application for plumbing repairs ($2,801.50) and for building repairs ($3,506.04) is dismissed.

The landlord’s applications for compensation for time off work, for stress, and for exemplary damages are withdrawn.

By consent, the parties will meet at [location suppressed] at 11.00am on Saturday 19 July 2025. The landlord will provide the passcode to the tenant so she can remove her goods. If the tenant does not remove all her goods by

00pm on Saturday 19 July 2025, the landlord: a. must take any of the tenant’s personal documents that have been left at the storage facility to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them. b. may dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant as the landlord sees fit. c. may apply to the Tribunal for an order to apply any funds received from the sale of any of the tenant’s goods to the amount ordered at order 2 of this order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I heard evidence from them and from 3 witnesses for the tenant.

The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, storage fees, the filing fee on the warrant for possession, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for an order for the return of her possessions currently held in storage. Background

The tenancy started on 30 September 2024. It was terminated by Tribunal order (date of order suppressed). The landlord was granted possession of the premises on 10 March 2025.

The tenant did not vacate the premises, so the landlord applied to have her evicted. A bailiff took possession of the premises on 24 March 2025.

The tenant did not remove her goods from the premises; by the time of the eviction, she had relocated away from [Event location suppressed].

Friends and family tried to assist with the retrieval of her goods. Some arrangements were made between the parties, but they kept changing. One of the tenant’s witnesses acted as mediator. He and the landlord texted each other about the removal of the tenant’s goods. The final messages by the landlord on 31 March and 2 April 2025 appear not to have been answered.

The landlord moved the tenant’s goods into storage (after initially placing them into the garage). The goods remain there still.

During the tenancy, and towards the end of it, the tenant became mentally unwell. She acknowledged that today and said she regretted the way in which matters deteriorated towards the end of the tenancy. She agreed that she had denied the landlord access to undertake inspections. She apologised to the landlord for her actions.

When the arrangement for the tenant’s friends and family to remove the possessions from the property broke down, the tenant made her application to the Tribunal. Although she referred to the landlord wrongly disposing of some of her goods into a skip, her application only seeks an order for the return of her goods.

The tenant’s application was set for a remote hearing by phone. However, shortly before the hearing the landlord filed her cross application. Another adjudicator ordered that both applications be heard in person.

I have considered all the evidence placed before the Tribunal, as well as the evidence of the parties and of the tenant’s witnesses, even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues

The issue to be determined on these applications are: •Should the Tribunal order the return of the tenant’s goods? •Should the Tribunal award the landlord the costs she seeks? Relevant statutory provisions

Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends and remove all goods from the premises.

Sections 62, 62A and 62B RTA set out what happens when a tenant leaves goods at the premises on the termination of the tenancy. A landlord may dispose of any goods assessed as having a value below the cost of storing, transporting them, and selling them, otherwise secure the goods in safe storage for not less than 35 days. A landlord may require a tenant to pay the actual and reasonable costs for the storage of the goods. Compensation

The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.

Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

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

At the end of the tenancy a 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) RTA.

The evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord’s claims for cleaning, lawn mowing and garden work, rubbish removal and for the removal of the tenant’s good initially into the garage and from there into secure storage are proved by the production of invoices and photos and by the evidence the landlord gave.

The tenant submitted, and some of her witnesses said, that the landlord kept changing her mind about allowing access to the premises for her friends and family to remove her goods. While the text messages are confusing, I am satisfied that the landlord made every reasonable effort for the tenant to collect her goods.

The landlord had statutory responsibilities when dealing with the tenant’s goods left behind. It was the tenant who was in breach. The tenancy was terminated, and possession granted to the landlord, on 10 March 2025. The tenant should have removed her goods by then. The landlord then had to enforce the possession order. The eviction happened on 24 March. But by the end of the month the tenant’s good still had not been removed.

The tenant is liable for the costs associated with the storage of her goods – the labour charges to remove her goods to the garage and then into secure storage, and the storage costs the landlord has incurred. She is also liable for 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 the fee the landlord had to pay to enforce the possession order the Tribunal made which resulted in the eviction.

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.

The tenant accepted some of the landlord’s claims. I have allowed those claims, marked *, by consent.

I award the landlord compensation of $500.00 for damage to the walls the tenant admitted. This is part of a larger claim for repairs of $2,500.00 including to the bathroom and back bedroom.

The premises were significantly damaged after the tenant was evicted by an unknown person or persons. I cannot determine from the evidence produced what the extent of the tenant’s liability for damage she caused is.

The invoice from XX is dated 5 May 2025. The work occurred between 16 April (the date the landlord reported the break-in to the police) and 2 May. So, it was after the unlawful entry that resulted in some of the damage to the premises.

The landlord said in evidence with regard to the builder’s repairs that it was ‘a bit of a guessing game’ as to how much related to the repairs needed as a result of the header tank gushing out over time. She did not address the other repairs listed in the invoice.

The Tribunal cannot make orders for compensation based on a ‘best guess’ approach; compensation recognises a loss that must be reasonably quantified.

The same applies for the claimed amount for plumbing repairs ($2,801.50). The landlord said the repairs related to an overflowing header tank which had been repaired early in the tenancy.

The plumber’s invoice narrates XX was initially called to site to repair a leaking header tank. We were called back for a second trip after the landlord’s property had been broken into and the majority of tap ware had been removed and stolen. Following his XX replaced taps inside and out as well as replacing the vanity...

While I accept that the landlord could not undertake inspections and the overflowing header tank was not reported to her, I cannot determine from the invoice produced in evidence the amount that related solely to that repair.

And while I accept that some of the building repairs possibility related to damage caused during the tenancy, beyond that accepted by the tenant, I again cannot quantify that from the evidence provided. Result

The tenant will pay the landlord $5,843.01.

The landlord’s application for the full cost of plumbing and building repairs is dismissed.

The tenant must uplift her goods from storage in accordance with the agreement reached today (recorded at Order 5) failing which the landlord can dispose of the goods or sell them or both. Comment

The arrangement for the tenant to collect her goods requires the parties to co- operate. One of the tenant’s witnesses offered to assist with that. It is the Tribunal’s expectation that the parties will avoid conflict while the tenant removes her goods. Nothing should be left behind.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5253599 — net $5,843.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Reglaze 3 windows	$322.63	Reglaze 3 windows
Compensation for damage to walls	$500.00	Compensation for damage to walls
Repair broken window frame	$140.00	Repair broken window frame
Lawns and garden work	$210.00	Lawns and garden work
Cleaning; moving goods to garage; carpet cleaning	$1,115.50	Cleaning; moving goods to garage; carpet cleaning
Move goods to secure storage	$634.88	Move goods to secure storage
Rubbish removal	$535.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee on warrant for possession	$258.00	Filing fee on warrant for possession
Storage costs	$2,100.00	Storage costs
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$5,843.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,843.01