Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5273161 — Rent arrears at 127 St Heliers Bay Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071
Decided 26 Sept 2025 · Published 26 Sept 2025 · Application 5273161
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], and [The tenant/s] must pay Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited as agent for Buckley 2020 Ltd $8,346.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay $4,345.71 from the bond of $4,345.71 (3233931-002) to Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited as agent or Buckley 2020 Ltd immediately, as calculated in the table below.
- The claims are allowed as set out in this decision. All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Katie Liao, the property manager, attended the hearing for the landlord.
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] attended for the tenants.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment over of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenants seek compensation for the landlord interfering with their quiet enjoyment and reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. How much is owed for rent and water
- The tenant’s occupation of the premises was ended by bailiffs taking possession of the premises on 24 March 2025. The acting property manager gave the tenants until 7 April 2025 to remove their belongings and attend to their vacate duties such as vacating the premises, cleaning, and removing rubbish.
- The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing for rent and water. For the period 24 March to 7 April 2025 during which the tenants were finalising their move-out but not permitted to live in the premises, I reduce the rent by 50 percent. The tenants could not live in the premises but nor could the landlord relet the premises.
Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy, tenants must return the premises to the landlord reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1 The tenants must also replace standard light bulbs.
- “Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, commercially clean, Open-Home clean, or clean to a hotel or motel standard. A landlord therefore may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
- It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall. A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 2
- The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 See s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 2 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
- 12.
- The tenants spent several days cleaning the premises. Overall, they did fairly well. However, multiple areas that were left less than reasonably clean including windowsills and drawer bases. I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean, albeit their cleaning was not far below that standard.
- The landlord sought $1,500.00 plus GST for cleaning based on an invoice from the owner/property developer’s contractor’s invoice. However, based on the ingoing and outgoing photographs, I consider that $350.00 is apposite compensation. That amount would pay a cleaner about six hours work, which would have been sufficient to bring the cleaning up to a reasonably clean standard.
- The tenants did not remove two old couches because they ran out of room in their hire bin. They tenants also left a piano, but that was because it belonged to the premises prior to the tenancy beginning. I order $200.00 for the rubbish removal, not the $500.00 plus GST sought. That greater amount included the piano which the landlord decided to get rid of.
- The tenants returned the keys they had, which were for the front door. The landlord had sought $816.50 for lock and key replacement, but that was for all manner of keys including for internal bedroom doors that did not even have door locks during the tenancy. The tenants should not have to pay for the landlord’s additions. In any event, I am not sure that tenants should be required to pay for re-keying of door lock of internal rooms just because there has been an eviction. I order $22.00 for the front door keys. Although the tenants returned the keys they had, there was revolving cast of tenants during the tenancy and the tenancy ended by way of the bailiffs taking possession. Therefore, the landlord can be rightly concerned about the house’s security due to previous tenants being able to enter the house if the external door locks were not change.
- The landlord had to replace light bulbs. There is a non-itemised invoice from the owner’s contractor for $700.00 to replace the lightbulbs. Presumably, the contractor purchased some lightbulbs and installed them. The tenants say they left as many light bulbs as were there when they joined the tenancy. However, the obligation arises from the beginning of the tenancy. Ms Liao estimates the house would have at least 30 lights. Not all the lightbulbs were missing, however. The likely cost of 20 lightbulbs is about $60.00. Replacing the lightbulbs is not a big job. A total of $100.00 is ordered for replacing the lightbulbs.
- The landlord had issued four garage remotes to tenants other than Mr Fearn and Mr Marks, who arrived much later in the piece. The other tenants only returned one remote. The remotes were several years old, so probably did not have much useful life left in them. I order $50.00 compensation to account for depreciation, not the $300.00 sought for new replacement remotes. These tenants are liable for the remotes because the tenancy was assigned to them as a continuing one, which makes them – within reasonable limitations - liable for the vacate duties for the entire tenancy.
- I also order the tenants to reimburse the landlord for the $258.00 that the landlord incurred for the bailiffs’ fees for eviction. That process was necessary because the tenants did not move out promptly after breaching the Tribunal’s earlier conditional termination order. 3
- The amounts ordered are proved.
Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?
- The landlord claimed for cost of damage for various items, including internal wall damage, a towel rail that had broken off the wall, replacing three sets of wardrobe doors, and the cost of replacing a toilet.
- 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 tenants 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. 4
- Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 5
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 6
- The tenants hung too many towels on the towel rack causing it to pull out from the wall and making a hole in the wall. One of the tenants accidentally put a large hole in a bedroom wall, probably when moving heavy furniture. The same tenant caused some minor hole damage, perhaps by attaching a wall decoration to the wall. The tenants in three bedrooms removed wardrobe doors to make more room for their beds. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear.
- The tenants do not have to reimburse the landlord for fair wear and tear. It is likely that the internal wall were more than five years beyond their last repaint and general repair, so the walls were due for repainting and minor repairs in any event.
- I order the tenants to contribute $650.00 of the $2,000.00 plus GST the landlord spent on various repairs and painting which clearly included matters for which the tenants are not liable. Did the landlord interfere with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment or reasonable peace?
- The tenants say the owner of the premises is a property developer who is developing several surrounding properties. Indeed, these premises were scheduled for demolition and redevelopment. 3 Gralin Property Management v Fearn, Marks, and others [2024] NZTT 4995048. 4 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 5 RTA 49B(1). 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- On about 18 November 2024, the owner without notice removed a line of large trees at the back of the property which provided a hedge-like natural screen and took possession of a strip of land that had previously been part of the premises.
- As a result of removing the trees, the tenants’ privacy was greatly reduced, the aesthetic appeal of the garden was destroyed, and they could not enjoy the back lawn of the premises as they had before. They suffered many unheralded visits from the owner and his contractors who were carrying out building works at the adjoining property. They lost the noise reduction the trees would have provided from the works as well as the visual privacy they would have afforded.
- Tenants are entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord and landlords must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 7
- I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord removed the trees and commandeered part of the premises as alleged. These constituted an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. As a consequence, the tenants suffered a significant inconvenience and loss of amenity in the premises.
- I assess the tenants’ loss of amenity at 7.5 percent of the weekly rent. The tenants referred me to an image that was taken on 18 November 2024 that showed the bleak outlook past the destroyed garden to the building work next door. I take 18 November 2024 as the start date and 23 March 2025 as the end date for calculating compensation for their loss of amenity. Filing fees and bond
- Both parties having succeeded in their claims, no order is made for reimbursement of the filing fees. 8
- One tenant has taken $654.29 from the bond.
- The remainder of the bond is to be paid out to the landlord in part payment of the tenants’ debt.