What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266021 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 5266021?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266021?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266021?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12319458-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266021 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 5266021?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266021?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266021?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12319458-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 9C, 8 Scotia Place, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266021 — Unit Titles

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One tenant represented both tenants.

The landlord has claimed just over $1,400 for water rates arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The claim for water rates arrears was withdrawn at the hearing.

The claim for body corporate penalty charges has already been considered and dismissed by Adjudicator Barnett on 26 March 2025 under [2025] NZTT 5164712. As I explained at the hearing, the landlord cannot bring this claim again.

There is a claim for a new sofa cover used to cover a dirty sofa. The landlord said the sofa was dirtier at the end of the tenancy than at the start.

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. This includes the chattels provided for their use. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).

The RTA does not require the chattels to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with photos taken at the start of the tenancy and photos taken at the end of the tenancy. I can see the sofa was dirty at the start of the tenancy. I accept the sofa was dirtier at the end of the tenancy, but the fact remains the sofa was already dirty when the tenants moved in. It would be unfair to expect the tenants to pay to improve the sofa. The claim for a sofa cover is dismissed.

There is a claim for $59 for a replacement dining chair. There are photos showing two chairs at the start and one chair at the end. The landlord said the chairs were swapped by the owner rather than replaced. The tenant said one of the dining chairs was wobbly when they moved in and this was reported to the landlord. He was not sure why the chair was missing at the end of the tenancy.

When it comes to compensation claims the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. I have no way of knowing whether swapped chairs cost $59. They could have cost less, or even been free. This claim is dismissed.

The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party today. The landlord’s name will be published because the there is public interest in names when elevated compensation claims are brought at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One tenant represented both tenants.

There is a claim for a new sofa cover used to cover a dirty sofa. The landlord said the sofa was dirtier at the end of the tenancy than at the start.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266021 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat Flat 9C, 8 Scotia Place, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266021 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat Flat 9C, 8 Scotia Place, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions