What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259401 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Rent Better Property Management Limited $2,811.20

How much money was awarded in case 5259401?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Painting And Scrubbing Of Walls: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Glass Pane In Front Door: $584.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259401?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259401?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12731921-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259401 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Rent Better Property Management Limited $2,811.20

How much money was awarded in case 5259401?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Painting And Scrubbing Of Walls: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Glass Pane In Front Door: $584.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259401?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259401?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12731921-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

313 Oxford Terrace, Avalon, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259401 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259401 — net $2,811.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Replace glass pane in front door	$584.20	Replace glass pane in front door
Painting and scrubbing of walls	$1,800.00	Painting and scrubbing of walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,811.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,811.20

The landlord attended the hearing on 18 November 2025. The tenant did not.

The landlord claims the tenant did not comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy and is responsible for damaging the premises during 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.

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

The law

At the end of a tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1

“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6

The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 7 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Analysis

The landlord gave evidence that the fridge inside the premises was dirty and required a deep clean. Similarly, the landlord claims the kitchen cupboards 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. underwent a deep clean and the carpets were professionally cleaned. Unfortunately, the landlord did not submit any photographs taken at the end of the tenancy that show the general state of the inside of the premises. I gave the landlord an opportunity to locate these photographs during the hearing, which they were unable to do.

In the absence of photographs showing the general state of the inside of the premises at the end of the tenancy, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the premises were left in an unreasonably clean and tidy state.

The landlord’s application for compensation for general cleaning is dismissed.

The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy which show the outside of the premises. The lawns and garden are overgrown, and rubbish has been left behind. There are children’s toys and bikes, as well as a broken set of drawers left in the garage. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord seeks compensation for this breach. They submitted an invoice for $1,380.00 (including GST) for general cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal. The landlord has not been successful in their claim for general cleaning and the invoice is not itemised. In these circumstances, I must order compensation for an amount that reasonably reflects the extent of the tenant’s breach. Considering the state of the lawns and amount of rubbish, I order the tenant to pay the following amounts: a. Lawns and garden work: $200.00 b. Rubbish removal: $200.00

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

The law

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. 8

Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 9 Analysis

The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The third glass pane in the front door is intact. In contrast, the photographs at the end of the tenancy show the glass pane has been broken and boarded up with pieces of wood. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the glass pane on the front door was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord submitted an invoice for $584.20 (including GST) to repair the glass pane. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount.

The landlord also claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the walls and door in bedroom 1, as well as other walls throughout the premises.

The landlord submitted photographs of bedroom 1 taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The door handle is present and there are no noticeable marks to the walls. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the doorhandle has been removed and paint has been peeled from some areas of the walls. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the doorhandle and walls in bedroom 1 were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord also submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, which show scribbles on the walls. The landlord gave evidence that there were no scribbles on the walls at the beginning of the tenancy, which I accept. On the balance of probabilities, I find the scribbles to the walls occurred during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord submitted an invoice for $2,553.00 to replace the door handle, paint the whole of bedroom 1 and scrub the walls. There needs to be an adjustment to the total amount of compensation ordered to reflect betterment and depreciation in respect of bedroom 1. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They must not be any better or worse off. The landlord does not know when bedroom 1 was last painted, which indicates it was most likely some time ago. The state of bedroom 1 has been improved as a result of the new paint job. I consider an adjustment of $753.00 is reasonable to reflect this. 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to fix the door handle, paint bedroom 1 and scrub the walls is granted for $1,800.00.

The landlord claims the tenant is also responsible for damaging the stovetop on top of the freestanding oven. A photograph taken at the end of the tenancy shows the stovetop is cracked however, no photographs of the stovetop from the beginning of the tenancy were submitted. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $2,127.50 to replace the freestanding oven and stovetop is dismissed. Filing fee

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259401 — net $2,811.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$200.00	Rubbish removal
Replace glass pane in front door	$584.20	Replace glass pane in front door
Painting and scrubbing of walls	$1,800.00	Painting and scrubbing of walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,811.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,811.20

The landlord attended the hearing on 18 November 2025. The tenant did not.

The landlord claims the tenant did not comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy and is responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy.

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

The law

At the end of a tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1

The landlord’s application for compensation for general cleaning is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

The law

The landlord submitted an invoice for $584.20 (including GST) to repair the glass pane. The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for this amount.

The landlord also claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the walls and door in bedroom 1, as well as other walls throughout the premises.

The landlord’s claim for compensation to fix the door handle, paint bedroom 1 and scrub the walls is granted for $1,800.00.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259401 — Tenancy dispute at 313 Oxford Terrace, Avalon, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259401 — Tenancy dispute at 313 Oxford Terrace, Avalon, Lower Hutt 5011

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 damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

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 damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions