What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270988 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Online Rentals Limited T/A Raywhite Hamilton as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5270988?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $41.24 awarded to landlord; Lock And Chain: $34.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $353.28 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13.35 awarded to landlord; Refill Gas Bottle: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,431.43 awarded to landlord; Refit Gate: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $442.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $457.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270988?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12384495-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270988 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Online Rentals Limited T/A Raywhite Hamilton as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5270988?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $41.24 awarded to landlord; Lock And Chain: $34.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $353.28 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13.35 awarded to landlord; Refill Gas Bottle: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,431.43 awarded to landlord; Refit Gate: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $442.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $457.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270988?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12384495-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Davis Place, Huntly, Huntly 3700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5270988 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5270988 — net $2,150.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 April 2025	$2,431.43	Rent arrears to 21 April 2025
Lock and chain	$34.47	Lock and chain
Light bulbs	$41.24	Light bulbs
Rubbish removal	$442.75	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$402.50	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$92.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$353.28	Lock/key replacement
Refill gas bottle	$45.00	Refill gas bottle
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$13.35	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Repairs: refit gate	$50.00	Repairs: refit gate
Water rates	$457.83	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,150.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,150.85

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Online Rentals Limited T/A Raywhite Hamilton as Agent for K & M Zwart Family Trust Sue Denison $2,150.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (3189055-017) to Online Rentals Limited T/A Raywhite Hamilton as Agent for K & M Zwart Family Trust Sue Denison immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 15 December 2023 and ended on 21 April 2025 after the tenant gave notice. On 22 May 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal. On 17 July 2025, the application was scheduled for an in person hearing at the Huntly Courthouse.
On the eve of the hearing, the matter was rescheduled to a telephone hearing. The Tribunal Registrar advised the landlord but was unable to contact the tenant. Courthouse staff were asked to advise if the tenant arrived for an in-person hearing.
Ms Denison appeared for the landlord. The tenant has not attended the Huntly Courthouse. I placed two calls to the tenant’s phone number, but on each occasion the call went to voicemail. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord’s claims are that the tenant: i. Owes rent arrears to the end of the tenancy ($2,431.43) ii. Owes outstanding water rates ($361.08, $96.75) iii. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean ($402.50) iv. Failed to remove all rubbish ($442.75) v. Failed to refill a gas bottle used for cooking and failed to account for a padlock and chain used to secure the bottle ($34.47, $45.00) vi. Failed to return the keys ($353.28) vii. Failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy ($92) viii. Failed to account for missing light bulbs and light fittings (($41.24, $13.35) ix. Is responsible for damage ($ 852.50)
In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Rent
The tenancy ended on 21 April 2025 after the tenant gave notice. In the application, the landlord stated that the rent arrears owing was $191.43. Ms Denison states this was an error, and that the amount actually owing was $2,431.43.
The landlord has produced a rent summary showing that the tenant’s last rent payment was made on 06 March 2025. The tenant was in rent credit until 21 March 2025, after which arrears accrued until the end of the tenancy. The rent arrears are proved, and the amount owing is awarded. Cleanliness, Rubbish, and Lawns
Has the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, leave the lawns reasonably tidy, account for chattels, and the keys.
Under section 40 (1) of the Act, 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.
The landlord produced photographs taken at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. It appears that no end of tenancy cleaning was conducted by the tenant. Household rubbish and some furniture were not removed. The tenant dumped garden waste and lawn clippings in the corner of the property. The lawns were not mown.
The tenant also moved a portable cabin onto the property with permission, but its placement damaged the lawn beneath. No attempt was made to reinstate the lawn. The amounts ordered for cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawn mowing and garden / lawn maintenance are proved. Keys
Ms Denison states that the tenant failed to return the keys, requiring the lock to be rekeyed for the next tenant. The tenancy agreement contains a photograph of the keys provided. I am satisfied that the keys were not returned, and the amount sought is proved. Gas bottle
There is a gas hob for cooking. A full bottle was provided at the commencement of the tenancy, along with a chain and padlocked used to secure it to the house. A full gas bottle is referred to as a chattel in the agreement. A photograph has been produced showing the gas bottle secure by the chain and padlock at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the gas bottle was empty, and the padlock and chain removed. Light bulbs and fittings
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy four light bulbs were missing. The landlord has provided photographs showing the missing light bulbs. The landlord has produced photographs of two light fittings that they state have been removed by the tenant. In each case, the fitting was located nearby but missing batten holders. Replacement batten holders were purchased and the fittings re- instated.
I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the missing bulbs and the reinstatement of the fittings. Smoke alarms.
Although the tenancy agreement records only one smoke alarm located in the hall near the entrance to the bedrooms, Ms Denison states that there were in fact four (hallway, both bedrooms, lounge). The landlord claims that the alarms in the bedrooms were missing and has produced photographs of empty brackets.
There are no photographs showing the missing smoke alarms at the commencement of the tenancy. The evidence is insufficient. I cannot be satisfied to the required standard and the claim is dismissed. Water rates
The property is on metered water. The landlord pays the invoice and then seeks reimbursement from the tenant. The landlord seeks reimbursement for the period 07 August 2024 to 10 February 2025 of $ 361.08, and 11 February 2025 to the end of the tenancy on 21 April 2025 of $96.75. The landlord has produced a invoice for the first period and the calculation for the second. The amount claimed is for usage only. I am satisfied that the outstanding water rates are proved, and the amount owing is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the 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.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for four broken door stops, three broken window latches, damage to the fibrolite base of the deck, partly repaired damage to a wall and door, damage from removal of an adhesive hook, and to reinstate the gate, which was removed between the penultimate, and the end of tenancy inspection.
There is no pre tenancy inspection report. Ms Denison states that the property had been previously tenanted before being offered for sale. Ms Denison states that the property did not sell, and the present agreement was then entered into. The landlord relies on the staging photographs taken for marketing purposes as evidence of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. Ms Denison asserts that these photographs accurately depict the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The photographs were clearly taken for staging purposes, are taken from a distance, lack sufficient detail, and appear enhanced to make the property appear attractive to potential purchasers, as would be expected. Despite Ms Denison’s assertions, I am not satisfied that the photographs are sufficient to make a proper pre tenancy assessment as to the property’s true condition for comparison purposes.
The landlord has produced photographs of one broken door stop and one broken latch only. There are no photographs showing the others claimed. There is no evidence of the condition of these items at the commencement of the tenancy. Also, I cannot rule out fair wear and tear. The only claim I find the tenant liable for is the removal of the gate, for which I award $50.00 to reinstate. Costs
Because Online Rentals Limited T/A Raywhite Hamilton as Agent for K & M Zwart Family Trust Sue Denison has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Although the landlord has been substantially successful and would be entitled to name suppression, they do not seek it. No orders are made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5270988 — net $2,150.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 April 2025	$2,431.43	Rent arrears to 21 April 2025
Lock and chain	$34.47	Lock and chain
Light bulbs	$41.24	Light bulbs
Rubbish removal	$442.75	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$402.50	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$92.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$353.28	Lock/key replacement
Refill gas bottle	$45.00	Refill gas bottle
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$13.35	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Repairs: refit gate	$50.00	Repairs: refit gate
Water rates	$457.83	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,150.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,150.85

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Online Rentals Limited T/A Raywhite Hamilton as Agent for K & M Zwart Family Trust Sue Denison $2,150.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (3189055-017) to Online Rentals Limited T/A Raywhite Hamilton as Agent for K & M Zwart Family Trust Sue Denison immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 15 December 2023 and ended on 21 April 2025 after the tenant gave notice. On 22 May 2025, the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal. On 17 July 2025, the application was scheduled for an in person hearing at the Huntly Courthouse.
On the eve of the hearing, the matter was rescheduled to a telephone hearing. The Tribunal Registrar advised the landlord but was unable to contact the tenant. Courthouse staff were asked to advise if the tenant arrived for an in-person hearing.
Ms Denison appeared for the landlord. The tenant has not attended the Huntly Courthouse. I placed two calls to the tenant’s phone number, but on each occasion the call went to voicemail. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord’s claims are that the tenant: i. Owes rent arrears to the end of the tenancy ($2,431.43) ii. Owes outstanding water rates ($361.08, $96.75) iii. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean ($402.50) iv. Failed to remove all rubbish ($442.75) v. Failed to refill a gas bottle used for cooking and failed to account for a padlock and chain used to secure the bottle ($34.47, $45.00) vi. Failed to return the keys ($353.28) vii. Failed to leave the lawns reasonably tidy ($92) viii. Failed to account for missing light bulbs and light fittings (($41.24, $13.35) ix. Is responsible for damage ($ 852.50)
In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Rent
The tenancy ended on 21 April 2025 after the tenant gave notice. In the application, the landlord stated that the rent arrears owing was $191.43. Ms Denison states this was an error, and that the amount actually owing was $2,431.43.
The landlord has produced a rent summary showing that the tenant’s last rent payment was made on 06 March 2025. The tenant was in rent credit until 21 March 2025, after which arrears accrued until the end of the tenancy. The rent arrears are proved, and the amount owing is awarded. Cleanliness, Rubbish, and Lawns
Has the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, leave the lawns reasonably tidy, account for chattels, and the keys.
Under section 40 (1) of the Act, 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.
The landlord produced photographs taken at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. It appears that no end of tenancy cleaning was conducted by the tenant. Household rubbish and some furniture were not removed. The tenant dumped garden waste and lawn clippings in the corner of the property. The lawns were not mown.
The tenant also moved a portable cabin onto the property with permission, but its placement damaged the lawn beneath. No attempt was made to reinstate the lawn. The amounts ordered for cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawn mowing and garden / lawn maintenance are proved. Keys
Ms Denison states that the tenant failed to return the keys, requiring the lock to be rekeyed for the next tenant. The tenancy agreement contains a photograph of the keys provided. I am satisfied that the keys were not returned, and the amount sought is proved. Gas bottle
There is a gas hob for cooking. A full bottle was provided at the commencement of the tenancy, along with a chain and padlocked used to secure it to the house. A full gas bottle is referred to as a chattel in the agreement. A photograph has been produced showing the gas bottle secure by the chain and padlock at the commencement of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the gas bottle was empty, and the padlock and chain removed. Light bulbs and fittings
The landlord states that at the end of the tenancy four light bulbs were missing. The landlord has provided photographs showing the missing light bulbs. The landlord has produced photographs of two light fittings that they state have been removed by the tenant. In each case, the fitting was located nearby but missing batten holders. Replacement batten holders were purchased and the fittings re- instated.
I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the missing bulbs and the reinstatement of the fittings. Smoke alarms.
Although the tenancy agreement records only one smoke alarm located in the hall near the entrance to the bedrooms, Ms Denison states that there were in fact four (hallway, both bedrooms, lounge). The landlord claims that the alarms in the bedrooms were missing and has produced photographs of empty brackets.
There are no photographs showing the missing smoke alarms at the commencement of the tenancy. The evidence is insufficient. I cannot be satisfied to the required standard and the claim is dismissed. Water rates
The property is on metered water. The landlord pays the invoice and then seeks reimbursement from the tenant. The landlord seeks reimbursement for the period 07 August 2024 to 10 February 2025 of $ 361.08, and 11 February 2025 to the end of the tenancy on 21 April 2025 of $96.75. The landlord has produced a invoice for the first period and the calculation for the second. The amount claimed is for usage only. I am satisfied that the outstanding water rates are proved, and the amount owing is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the 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.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for four broken door stops, three broken window latches, damage to the fibrolite base of the deck, partly repaired damage to a wall and door, damage from removal of an adhesive hook, and to reinstate the gate, which was removed between the penultimate, and the end of tenancy inspection.
There is no pre tenancy inspection report. Ms Denison states that the property had been previously tenanted before being offered for sale. Ms Denison states that the property did not sell, and the present agreement was then entered into. The landlord relies on the staging photographs taken for marketing purposes as evidence of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. Ms Denison asserts that these photographs accurately depict the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The photographs were clearly taken for staging purposes, are taken from a distance, lack sufficient detail, and appear enhanced to make the property appear attractive to potential purchasers, as would be expected. Despite Ms Denison’s assertions, I am not satisfied that the photographs are sufficient to make a proper pre tenancy assessment as to the property’s true condition for comparison purposes.
The landlord has produced photographs of one broken door stop and one broken latch only. There are no photographs showing the others claimed. There is no evidence of the condition of these items at the commencement of the tenancy. Also, I cannot rule out fair wear and tear. The only claim I find the tenant liable for is the removal of the gate, for which I award $50.00 to reinstate. Costs
Because Online Rentals Limited T/A Raywhite Hamilton as Agent for K & M Zwart Family Trust Sue Denison has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
Although the landlord has been substantially successful and would be entitled to name suppression, they do not seek it. No orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5270988 — Rent arrears at 11 Davis Place, Huntly, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5270988 — Rent arrears at 11 Davis Place, Huntly, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions