What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266880 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 5266880?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Belongings: $262.20 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266880?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12207123-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266880 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 5266880?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Belongings: $262.20 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266880?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266880?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12207123-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Douglas Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266880 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

25 Douglas Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266880 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266880 — net $989.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20/2/25	$600.00	Rent arrears to 20/2/25
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning – part awarded	$100.00	Cleaning – part awarded
Removal of belongings	$262.20	Removal of belongings
Net award	$989.20
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$989.20

Claims and awards for application 5266880 — net $989.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 20/2/25

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 20/2/25

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Cleaning – part awarded

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning – part awarded

Removal of belongings

Amount: $262.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Removal of belongings

Net award

Landlord $989.20

Bond

Landlord $1,200.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

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/s] to pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited $989.20 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Powell & Co Property Management Limited: $989.20 [The tenant/s]: $210.80
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

ATTENDANCES

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenant had a support person attend the hearing with her.

CLAIMS

The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears, b. compensation, c. payment of the bond, and d. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally 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 1 , 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.”

RENT ARREARS

On 10 December 2024, by way of a consent order made in the Tribunal, the parties agreed that the tenancy would terminate on Monday 17 February 2025, unless the tenant failed to pay rent until the termination date. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02
As of Monday 17 February 2025, the rent was $342.86.
The tenant disputed the rent arrears owing as at 17 February 2025. I have reviewed the rent ledger and in considering the amount the tenant said she paid I find the rent ledger is accurate.
The landlord seeks rent until 21 February 2025 as this is the day they changed the locks. The tenant acknowledged she did not vacate the premises until 19 February 2025. The tenant gave the landlord the keys that day.
However, the landlord agreed to provide the keys to the tenant for Thursday 20 February 2025 to allow her to collect her belongings.
I understand the tenant’s brother went to the property to collect the belongings, but he remained at the premises that day to have a shower. I therefore consider the tenant had possession until 20 February 2025. 2
As noted above, the landlord sought rent arrears for Friday 21 February 2025, this being the day the landlord changed the locks. On the evidence provided I am not satisfied that the tenant had possession on that date.
The total amount I award for rent arrears to 20 February 2025 is $600.00. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at 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. 3

CLEANING PRINCIPLES

There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 5 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or 2 See s 60 of the RTA - Tenant remaining in possession after termination of tenancy. 3 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 motel standard. 6 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 7
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has provided photographs of unclean areas. Few wide-shot photographs were submitted of the premises which makes it difficult to assess overall whether the premises is reasonably clean and tidy.
I have reviewed the photographs provided and consider the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The oven in particular should have been cleaned.
I consider the tenant should have completed a final wipe down of some surfaces to remove grime and dust.
I take into account that the premises is dated, and some surfaces were aged and worn. It is difficult to tell what is worn and unclean and it would have been a difficult property to clean.
The tenant says she was not given time after the tenancy ended to complete the cleaning and the cleaning was not raised at the final inspection. I do not consider the landlord is required to give additional time after the tenancy has ended for the tenant to complete the cleaning.
Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy. 8 The tenant suggested she left the premises cleaner than at the start but no photographs were provided by either party from the start of the tenancy for this to be assessed.
I make an order for compensation for some extra cleaning which includes the oven of $100.00. The amount ordered is proved.

LOCKS

The landlord seeks compensation for lock replacement.
The locks were replaced on Friday 21 February 2025 following an incident involving the tenant’s brother and the landlord having some concerns around security.
The tenant says she returned the keys, but they were subsequently left in the letter box and it appears her brother entered the premises and the landlord arrived at the premises to find him there on 20 February 2025. However, following this I understand the tenant did then return the keys. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 6 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 7 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 8 Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994
I asked the property manager at the hearing, whether following the tenant collecting her belongings if the keys were then returned at the end of 20 th February 2025, the property manager said she believed so, but I gather they were still worried about whether there were additional keys cut.
I do not consider this claim reasonable when the keys were left at the premises for the tenant to uplift her belongings (and I have made an order that she pay rent for this additional time she had possession) as it appears she did return the keys following this.
In addition, there is no record submitted of how many keys were provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has not proved that the tenant did not return the keys. The claim in respect of keys is dismissed.

REMOVAL OF BELONGINGS

The tenant accepted she did not remove all of her belongings by the termination date. The landlord arranged for the tenant’s belongings to be removed from the premises to the property managers office to be collected by the tenant, which I understand she did. I find this cost of removing the belongings to the property managers office is reasonable and make an order with the agreement of the tenant for $262.20.

LANDLORDS ADDITIONAL TIME CLAIM

The landlord claimed $60 in respect of the claim that the landlord removed shelves in the kitchen and did not put them back up. The landlord said the tenant removed the brackets and did not replace them. The landlord claimed compensation for the lost brackets. No invoice or quotes were provided in support of the claim.
The claim for $60 was also in relation to removing a broken cabinet and shelf the landlord says the tenant left behind. No photographs of the broken cabinet or shelf were provided in support of this claim.
The claim was also to cover the landlord’s time for removing tape that was applied to windows. No photographs were provided in support of this claim.
The tenant did not agree to paying the claim for $60.
I find the landlord has not proven on the evidence that they should be compensated $60 for the above matters and the claim is dismissed.

BOND

The amount ordered in this order does not exceed the bond. Part of the bond is awarded to the landlord to off-set the amounts ordered. I indicated at the hearing the balance will be held at the Bond centre, however on review as the tenancy has ended it is appropriate to release the balance to the tenant and I have made an order in respect of this.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the landlord the filing fee of $27.

SUPPRESSION

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression and I award name suppression as the amount ordered does not exceed the bond, and I consider the tenant’s interest outweigh the public interest in this case.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5266880 — net $989.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20/2/25	$600.00	Rent arrears to 20/2/25
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning – part awarded	$100.00	Cleaning – part awarded
Removal of belongings	$262.20	Removal of belongings
Net award	$989.20
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$989.20

Claims and awards for application 5266880 — net $989.20 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 20/2/25

Amount: $600.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 20/2/25

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Cleaning – part awarded

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning – part awarded

Removal of belongings

Amount: $262.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Removal of belongings

Net award

Landlord $989.20

Bond

Landlord $1,200.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

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/s] to pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited $989.20 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Powell & Co Property Management Limited: $989.20 [The tenant/s]: $210.80
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

ATTENDANCES

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The tenant had a support person attend the hearing with her.

CLAIMS

The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears, b. compensation, c. payment of the bond, and d. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally 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 1 , 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.”

RENT ARREARS

On 10 December 2024, by way of a consent order made in the Tribunal, the parties agreed that the tenancy would terminate on Monday 17 February 2025, unless the tenant failed to pay rent until the termination date. 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02
As of Monday 17 February 2025, the rent was $342.86.
The tenant disputed the rent arrears owing as at 17 February 2025. I have reviewed the rent ledger and in considering the amount the tenant said she paid I find the rent ledger is accurate.
The landlord seeks rent until 21 February 2025 as this is the day they changed the locks. The tenant acknowledged she did not vacate the premises until 19 February 2025. The tenant gave the landlord the keys that day.
However, the landlord agreed to provide the keys to the tenant for Thursday 20 February 2025 to allow her to collect her belongings.
I understand the tenant’s brother went to the property to collect the belongings, but he remained at the premises that day to have a shower. I therefore consider the tenant had possession until 20 February 2025. 2
As noted above, the landlord sought rent arrears for Friday 21 February 2025, this being the day the landlord changed the locks. On the evidence provided I am not satisfied that the tenant had possession on that date.
The total amount I award for rent arrears to 20 February 2025 is $600.00. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at 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. 3

CLEANING PRINCIPLES

There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work).
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 5 Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or 2 See s 60 of the RTA - Tenant remaining in possession after termination of tenancy. 3 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 motel standard. 6 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 7
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has provided photographs of unclean areas. Few wide-shot photographs were submitted of the premises which makes it difficult to assess overall whether the premises is reasonably clean and tidy.
I have reviewed the photographs provided and consider the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The oven in particular should have been cleaned.
I consider the tenant should have completed a final wipe down of some surfaces to remove grime and dust.
I take into account that the premises is dated, and some surfaces were aged and worn. It is difficult to tell what is worn and unclean and it would have been a difficult property to clean.
The tenant says she was not given time after the tenancy ended to complete the cleaning and the cleaning was not raised at the final inspection. I do not consider the landlord is required to give additional time after the tenancy has ended for the tenant to complete the cleaning.
Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy. 8 The tenant suggested she left the premises cleaner than at the start but no photographs were provided by either party from the start of the tenancy for this to be assessed.
I make an order for compensation for some extra cleaning which includes the oven of $100.00. The amount ordered is proved.

LOCKS

The landlord seeks compensation for lock replacement.
The locks were replaced on Friday 21 February 2025 following an incident involving the tenant’s brother and the landlord having some concerns around security.
The tenant says she returned the keys, but they were subsequently left in the letter box and it appears her brother entered the premises and the landlord arrived at the premises to find him there on 20 February 2025. However, following this I understand the tenant did then return the keys. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 6 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 7 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008 8 Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994
I asked the property manager at the hearing, whether following the tenant collecting her belongings if the keys were then returned at the end of 20 th February 2025, the property manager said she believed so, but I gather they were still worried about whether there were additional keys cut.
I do not consider this claim reasonable when the keys were left at the premises for the tenant to uplift her belongings (and I have made an order that she pay rent for this additional time she had possession) as it appears she did return the keys following this.
In addition, there is no record submitted of how many keys were provided at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord has not proved that the tenant did not return the keys. The claim in respect of keys is dismissed.

REMOVAL OF BELONGINGS

The tenant accepted she did not remove all of her belongings by the termination date. The landlord arranged for the tenant’s belongings to be removed from the premises to the property managers office to be collected by the tenant, which I understand she did. I find this cost of removing the belongings to the property managers office is reasonable and make an order with the agreement of the tenant for $262.20.

LANDLORDS ADDITIONAL TIME CLAIM

The landlord claimed $60 in respect of the claim that the landlord removed shelves in the kitchen and did not put them back up. The landlord said the tenant removed the brackets and did not replace them. The landlord claimed compensation for the lost brackets. No invoice or quotes were provided in support of the claim.
The claim for $60 was also in relation to removing a broken cabinet and shelf the landlord says the tenant left behind. No photographs of the broken cabinet or shelf were provided in support of this claim.
The claim was also to cover the landlord’s time for removing tape that was applied to windows. No photographs were provided in support of this claim.
The tenant did not agree to paying the claim for $60.
I find the landlord has not proven on the evidence that they should be compensated $60 for the above matters and the claim is dismissed.

BOND

The amount ordered in this order does not exceed the bond. Part of the bond is awarded to the landlord to off-set the amounts ordered. I indicated at the hearing the balance will be held at the Bond centre, however on review as the tenancy has ended it is appropriate to release the balance to the tenant and I have made an order in respect of this.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the landlord the filing fee of $27.

SUPPRESSION

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression and I award name suppression as the amount ordered does not exceed the bond, and I consider the tenant’s interest outweigh the public interest in this case.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

ATTENDANCES

CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

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

CLEANING PRINCIPLES

LOCKS

REMOVAL OF BELONGINGS

LANDLORDS ADDITIONAL TIME CLAIM

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

ATTENDANCES

CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS

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

CLEANING PRINCIPLES

LOCKS

REMOVAL OF BELONGINGS

LANDLORDS ADDITIONAL TIME CLAIM

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions