What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270987 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders continued suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5270987?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5153384 D…: $1,827.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $128.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270987?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270987?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12171150-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270987 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders continued suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5270987?

Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5153384 D…: $1,827.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $128.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270987?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270987?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12171150-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1L, 99 Customs Street West, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5270987 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat 1L, 99 Customs Street West, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5270987 — Cleanliness | 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 5270987 — net $1,496.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 January 2025	$128.71		Rent arrears to 5 January 2025
Cleaning	$175.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Previous order application 5153384 dated 13/05/2025		$1,827.00	Previous order application 5153384 dated 13/05/2025
Total award	$330.71	$1,827.00
Net award		$1,496.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,496.29

Claims and awards for application 5270987 — net $1,496.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 5 January 2025

Amount: $128.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 5 January 2025

Cleaning

Amount: $175.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Previous order application 5153384 dated 13/05/2025

Amount: $1,827.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Previous order application 5153384 dated 13/05/2025

Total award

Landlord $330.71 · Tenant $1,827.00

Net award

Tenant $1,496.29

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders continued suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
This Order should be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s Order dated 13 May 2025 in application 5153384, which this Order supersedes.
Viaduct City Rentals Limited Vicky Ritchie & Lindsay Sweeney must pay [The tenant/s] $1,496.29 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
This hearing was scheduled to hear the landlord’s application for a rehearing of an Order made on 13 May 2025 in application. 5153384 (“May Order”).
The landlord then brought this application seeking rent arrears and compensation.
The parties agreed that this hearing should be utilised to determine both the landlord’s re-hearing application and these new claims.

Should a re-hearing of the May Order be ordered?

The May Order required that the landlord pay the tenant compensation for the effect of leaks on her use and enjoyment of the premises and compensation and exemplary damages for failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair.
On 22 May 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that “I have recently obtained evidence which disproves the tenant’s claim that the carpet was wet for approximately 20 weeks. Furthermore, I now have documentation that demonstrates that the tenant failed to notify the landlord of the maintenance issues in a timely and reasonable manner, as required under the Residential Tenancies Act. At the original hearing, I was not in a position to adequately present this evidence, as many documentation was printed and provided at the hearing itself, leaving insufficient time to prepare a full response or counter submission.”
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Some of the evidence considered at the hearing was not served in advance.
I would be inclined to allow a rehearing to allow the landlord to present more evidence, if the landlord did not know it would have been relevant at the hearing and might have had a significant effect on the outcome.
The landlord says the new evidence is in the form of inspection reports during the tenancy and invoices showing the work done on the premises which show the leak had been fixed, before the date up to which tenant claims compensation for the effect of the leaks.
Having reviewed that additional evidence and heard from the parties, my finding is that the additional evidence the landlord wants considered is unlikely to have significantly affected my assessment of the appropriate compensation to award the tenant. Photographic and other evidence showing the duration of the leak’s effects on the tenant’s use of the premises is persuasive. Evidence shows that up to 30 November 2024 the shower causing the leak had not actually been fixed and the tenant’s use of the premises continued to be compromised.
Evidence showing the efforts made by the landlord to try and address the leaks is relevant to whether exemplary damages should be awarded but not directly relevant to compensation. No exemplary damages were awarded for breach of repair obligations during the tenancy.
I do not consider there to be a risk of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice having occurred and the application for rehearing is dismissed. Landlord’s claims Rent
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 13 January 2024 to 13 January 2025.
The landlord has provided a rent statement showing unpaid rent of $1,285.72 at the end of the fixed term 13 January 2025.
The tenant has provided evidence to prove that: a. the payment shown in the summary of $257.14 on 11 December 2024 was in fact a full week’s rent payment of $450.00; and b. the tenant paid a further week’s rent of $450.00 on 18 December 2024 which is not accounted for in the statement.
There is no explanation for those inaccuracies in the landlords’ statement.
The unpaid rent at 13 January 2025 was therefore $642.86.
The question is whether the tenancy had been ended before the end of the fixed term.
On 9 November the tenant e-mailed the landlord to ask that the tenancy be ended at the end of December 2024, citing many issues with the condition and repair of the premises. She followed up about her request on 13 November and was advised on the same day, “I’m waiting for confirmation. Will update you once I hear from the director.”
On 20 November the property manager asked, “What date is your desire move out day. The tenant responded the same day, I would like it to end on the 24 th December”
On 24 November the tenant e-mailed the landlord, “As I explained before, I would like to move out on 24 December. As mentioned before in the previous e-mail I’m not happy with lots of things in the room....”
On 25 November the property manager advised, “That is actually a very quiet time of year. Can we adjust a little bit?”
There is no evidence of further discussion, and the tenant moved out on 24 December.
My finding is that given the issues with the premises which are addressed in the May Order, the tenant was entitled to request an early end to the tenancy, which the landlord had an obligation to consider reasonably and respond to.
The landlord was aware of the proposed termination date and between 9 November and 25 November the landlord had not given a definitive response making it virtually impossible for the tenant to make plans.
That said, the tenant had signed a fixed term tenancy through to 13 January 2025 and so it is for her to prove an entitlement to end the tenancy early.
The landlord is correct that immediately before Christmas is a difficult time to find new tenants and minimise rental losses.
I find that the landlord’s responses entitled the tenant to act on the basis that the tenant would not be held to the full fixed term but that the landlord did not agree to the tenancy ending immediately before Christmas.
In those circumstances I find that the tenant was entitled to end the tenancy, with a little adjustment to her preferred end date, effective Sunday 5 January 2025 and rent should be payable by her to that date.
I have addressed in the May Order the tenant’s claim that a rent refund is due to her.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant accepts that she did not fully clean the premises before she vacated but says she should not have had to, because the premises were not provided to her in reasonably clean condition, as found in the May Order.
The landlord has provided evidence in support of its claim and a cleaning invoice which it paid, for $225.00 for window cleaning, kitchen shelf cleaning wall mark removal, shower glass and door cleaning, washing machine and dryer cleaning rubbish removal and vacuum, rubbish bin cleaning.
For the most part at least, those are things that the vacating tenant ought to have done, even though the premises were not provided to her, in some respects, not reasonably clean.
The tenant has been compensated in the May Order for the landlord’s breach of that obligation and in fairness, the landlord should be compensated for the tenant’s breach of her obligation, by the tenant being required to make a significant contribution to those cleaning costs.
On 30 January 2024, the landlord called a technician to look at the washing machine which was not draining. The technician’s report records, “Tested unit found unit not draining and found the drainpump had cotton all around it. Cleared unit and tested. Unit working OK.”
The landlord paid the technician’s charge of $160.00.
The landlord says the issue must have been with the tenant’s careless use of the washing machine. The tenant says she only used it in the usual way and because the callout was made less than a month into the tenancy, the need for it likely resulted from use of the washing machine before her tenancy started.
A landlord must prove that damage 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.
Given how soon into the tenancy the issue arose and the tenant’s evidence about how the machine was used, I do not find it proved more likely than not, that the need for repair was caused during this tenancy. That claim is dismissed.
Because the landlord has had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.

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 5270987 — net $1,496.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 January 2025	$128.71		Rent arrears to 5 January 2025
Cleaning	$175.00		Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Previous order application 5153384 dated 13/05/2025		$1,827.00	Previous order application 5153384 dated 13/05/2025
Total award	$330.71	$1,827.00
Net award		$1,496.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,496.29

Claims and awards for application 5270987 — net $1,496.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 5 January 2025

Amount: $128.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 5 January 2025

Cleaning

Amount: $175.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Previous order application 5153384 dated 13/05/2025

Amount: $1,827.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Previous order application 5153384 dated 13/05/2025

Total award

Landlord $330.71 · Tenant $1,827.00

Net award

Tenant $1,496.29

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders continued suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
This Order should be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s Order dated 13 May 2025 in application 5153384, which this Order supersedes.
Viaduct City Rentals Limited Vicky Ritchie & Lindsay Sweeney must pay [The tenant/s] $1,496.29 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
This hearing was scheduled to hear the landlord’s application for a rehearing of an Order made on 13 May 2025 in application. 5153384 (“May Order”).
The landlord then brought this application seeking rent arrears and compensation.
The parties agreed that this hearing should be utilised to determine both the landlord’s re-hearing application and these new claims.

Should a re-hearing of the May Order be ordered?

The May Order required that the landlord pay the tenant compensation for the effect of leaks on her use and enjoyment of the premises and compensation and exemplary damages for failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair.
On 22 May 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that “I have recently obtained evidence which disproves the tenant’s claim that the carpet was wet for approximately 20 weeks. Furthermore, I now have documentation that demonstrates that the tenant failed to notify the landlord of the maintenance issues in a timely and reasonable manner, as required under the Residential Tenancies Act. At the original hearing, I was not in a position to adequately present this evidence, as many documentation was printed and provided at the hearing itself, leaving insufficient time to prepare a full response or counter submission.”
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Some of the evidence considered at the hearing was not served in advance.
I would be inclined to allow a rehearing to allow the landlord to present more evidence, if the landlord did not know it would have been relevant at the hearing and might have had a significant effect on the outcome.
The landlord says the new evidence is in the form of inspection reports during the tenancy and invoices showing the work done on the premises which show the leak had been fixed, before the date up to which tenant claims compensation for the effect of the leaks.
Having reviewed that additional evidence and heard from the parties, my finding is that the additional evidence the landlord wants considered is unlikely to have significantly affected my assessment of the appropriate compensation to award the tenant. Photographic and other evidence showing the duration of the leak’s effects on the tenant’s use of the premises is persuasive. Evidence shows that up to 30 November 2024 the shower causing the leak had not actually been fixed and the tenant’s use of the premises continued to be compromised.
Evidence showing the efforts made by the landlord to try and address the leaks is relevant to whether exemplary damages should be awarded but not directly relevant to compensation. No exemplary damages were awarded for breach of repair obligations during the tenancy.
I do not consider there to be a risk of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice having occurred and the application for rehearing is dismissed. Landlord’s claims Rent
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 13 January 2024 to 13 January 2025.
The landlord has provided a rent statement showing unpaid rent of $1,285.72 at the end of the fixed term 13 January 2025.
The tenant has provided evidence to prove that: a. the payment shown in the summary of $257.14 on 11 December 2024 was in fact a full week’s rent payment of $450.00; and b. the tenant paid a further week’s rent of $450.00 on 18 December 2024 which is not accounted for in the statement.
There is no explanation for those inaccuracies in the landlords’ statement.
The unpaid rent at 13 January 2025 was therefore $642.86.
The question is whether the tenancy had been ended before the end of the fixed term.
On 9 November the tenant e-mailed the landlord to ask that the tenancy be ended at the end of December 2024, citing many issues with the condition and repair of the premises. She followed up about her request on 13 November and was advised on the same day, “I’m waiting for confirmation. Will update you once I hear from the director.”
On 20 November the property manager asked, “What date is your desire move out day. The tenant responded the same day, I would like it to end on the 24 th December”
On 24 November the tenant e-mailed the landlord, “As I explained before, I would like to move out on 24 December. As mentioned before in the previous e-mail I’m not happy with lots of things in the room....”
On 25 November the property manager advised, “That is actually a very quiet time of year. Can we adjust a little bit?”
There is no evidence of further discussion, and the tenant moved out on 24 December.
My finding is that given the issues with the premises which are addressed in the May Order, the tenant was entitled to request an early end to the tenancy, which the landlord had an obligation to consider reasonably and respond to.
The landlord was aware of the proposed termination date and between 9 November and 25 November the landlord had not given a definitive response making it virtually impossible for the tenant to make plans.
That said, the tenant had signed a fixed term tenancy through to 13 January 2025 and so it is for her to prove an entitlement to end the tenancy early.
The landlord is correct that immediately before Christmas is a difficult time to find new tenants and minimise rental losses.
I find that the landlord’s responses entitled the tenant to act on the basis that the tenant would not be held to the full fixed term but that the landlord did not agree to the tenancy ending immediately before Christmas.
In those circumstances I find that the tenant was entitled to end the tenancy, with a little adjustment to her preferred end date, effective Sunday 5 January 2025 and rent should be payable by her to that date.
I have addressed in the May Order the tenant’s claim that a rent refund is due to her.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant accepts that she did not fully clean the premises before she vacated but says she should not have had to, because the premises were not provided to her in reasonably clean condition, as found in the May Order.
The landlord has provided evidence in support of its claim and a cleaning invoice which it paid, for $225.00 for window cleaning, kitchen shelf cleaning wall mark removal, shower glass and door cleaning, washing machine and dryer cleaning rubbish removal and vacuum, rubbish bin cleaning.
For the most part at least, those are things that the vacating tenant ought to have done, even though the premises were not provided to her, in some respects, not reasonably clean.
The tenant has been compensated in the May Order for the landlord’s breach of that obligation and in fairness, the landlord should be compensated for the tenant’s breach of her obligation, by the tenant being required to make a significant contribution to those cleaning costs.
On 30 January 2024, the landlord called a technician to look at the washing machine which was not draining. The technician’s report records, “Tested unit found unit not draining and found the drainpump had cotton all around it. Cleared unit and tested. Unit working OK.”
The landlord paid the technician’s charge of $160.00.
The landlord says the issue must have been with the tenant’s careless use of the washing machine. The tenant says she only used it in the usual way and because the callout was made less than a month into the tenancy, the need for it likely resulted from use of the washing machine before her tenancy started.
A landlord must prove that damage 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.
Given how soon into the tenancy the issue arose and the tenant’s evidence about how the machine was used, I do not find it proved more likely than not, that the need for repair was caused during this tenancy. That claim is dismissed.
Because the landlord has had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5270987 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1L, 99 Customs Street West, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5270987 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1L, 99 Customs Street West, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a re-hearing of the May Order be ordered?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a re-hearing of the May Order be ordered?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions