What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5273465?

The tribunal order states: Dion Ross must pay The Property Boss Limited - As Agent For Antje Vinke &

How much money was awarded in case 5273465?

Cleaning: $392.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $560.63 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5169911 D…: $3,974.53 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $293.64 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $865.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273465?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273465?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12341586-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5273465?

The tribunal order states: Dion Ross must pay The Property Boss Limited - As Agent For Antje Vinke &

How much money was awarded in case 5273465?

Cleaning: $392.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $560.63 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5169911 D…: $3,974.53 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $293.64 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $865.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5273465?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5273465?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12341586-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 633 Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273465 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 633 Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5273465 — 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 5273465 — net $6,112.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5169911 dated 02/04/2025	$3,974.53	Previous order application 5169911 dated 02/04/2025
Cleaning: incl	$392.00	Cleaning: incl
Rubbish removal	$865.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$560.63	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$293.64	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,112.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,112.80

Claims and awards for application 5273465 — net $6,112.80 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5169911 dated 02/04/2025

Amount: $3,974.53
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5169911 dated 02/04/2025

Cleaning: incl

Amount: $392.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: incl

Rubbish removal

Amount: $865.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $560.63
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $293.64
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Dion Ross must pay The Property Boss Limited - As Agent For Antje Vinke & Heiko Lange $6,112.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by phone.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on at 11.59pm 2 April 2025 via a Tribunal Order.
The onus of proof is on the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities; that is, more likely than not.

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, and return all keys and security devices.
The property manager provided photographs which show tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided invoices for: Rubbish removal $863.40 Cleaning $322 Further rubbish removal and cleaning of the Council bins $70.
The landlord explained that the bins were full and had not been used for the designated purpose.
I accept that if the bins have not been used for the right types of rubbish, they will not be emptied by the Council. They needed to be emptied and cleaned out ready for the next tenant. The sum of $70 is reasonable.
The photos show that the grounds were very overgrown. The tenant said that he was spending a lot on weed killer and the owner had told him that they would get new bark put down.
The property manager denied any knowledge of this.
The tenant provided no evidence such as an email from the owner that said that the tenant did not have to keep the grounds tidy. Even if there was a plan to replace or replenish bark, the weeds till need to be removed and the premises kept tidy in the meantime. The landlord has established this claim.
The tenant did not return the keys. The locks needed to be replaced. The landlord has claimed replacement of the locks on three occasions, because it is alleged that after the tenancy had ended, the tenant had come back twice more and broken in. The tenant denies that.
The property manager said that he believed the tenant was responsible for the further damage to the locks because he has been in trouble with the Police before and he damaged his grandmother’s tyres. He said this was similar fact evidence.
First, I do not find that those allegations are of the same nature as the allegation that the tenant broke into the flat. Second even if they were of such a nature as to constitute “propensity evidence”, the landlord produced no evidence of these alleged events. The landlord has not established that the further damage to the locks was more than likely caused by the tenant.
I therefore order $293.64 for the April locksmith invoice. I make no order in relation to the two further invoices.
Taking into account the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, the other amounts are reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because The Property Boss Limited - As Agent For Antje Vinke & Heiko Lange has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed 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 5273465 — net $6,112.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5169911 dated 02/04/2025	$3,974.53	Previous order application 5169911 dated 02/04/2025
Cleaning: incl	$392.00	Cleaning: incl
Rubbish removal	$865.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$560.63	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$293.64	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,112.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,112.80

Claims and awards for application 5273465 — net $6,112.80 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Previous order application 5169911 dated 02/04/2025

Amount: $3,974.53
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Previous order application 5169911 dated 02/04/2025

Cleaning: incl

Amount: $392.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: incl

Rubbish removal

Amount: $865.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $560.63
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $293.64
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Dion Ross must pay The Property Boss Limited - As Agent For Antje Vinke & Heiko Lange $6,112.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by phone.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on at 11.59pm 2 April 2025 via a Tribunal Order.
The onus of proof is on the landlord. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities; that is, more likely than not.

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, and return all keys and security devices.
The property manager provided photographs which show tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided invoices for: Rubbish removal $863.40 Cleaning $322 Further rubbish removal and cleaning of the Council bins $70.
The landlord explained that the bins were full and had not been used for the designated purpose.
I accept that if the bins have not been used for the right types of rubbish, they will not be emptied by the Council. They needed to be emptied and cleaned out ready for the next tenant. The sum of $70 is reasonable.
The photos show that the grounds were very overgrown. The tenant said that he was spending a lot on weed killer and the owner had told him that they would get new bark put down.
The property manager denied any knowledge of this.
The tenant provided no evidence such as an email from the owner that said that the tenant did not have to keep the grounds tidy. Even if there was a plan to replace or replenish bark, the weeds till need to be removed and the premises kept tidy in the meantime. The landlord has established this claim.
The tenant did not return the keys. The locks needed to be replaced. The landlord has claimed replacement of the locks on three occasions, because it is alleged that after the tenancy had ended, the tenant had come back twice more and broken in. The tenant denies that.
The property manager said that he believed the tenant was responsible for the further damage to the locks because he has been in trouble with the Police before and he damaged his grandmother’s tyres. He said this was similar fact evidence.
First, I do not find that those allegations are of the same nature as the allegation that the tenant broke into the flat. Second even if they were of such a nature as to constitute “propensity evidence”, the landlord produced no evidence of these alleged events. The landlord has not established that the further damage to the locks was more than likely caused by the tenant.
I therefore order $293.64 for the April locksmith invoice. I make no order in relation to the two further invoices.
Taking into account the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, the other amounts are reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because The Property Boss Limited - As Agent For Antje Vinke & Heiko Lange has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273465 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 633 Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5273465 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 633 Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions