What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5280140?

The tribunal order states: Giles Ellis to pay Sustainable Properties (Anderson) Limited $1,000.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5280140?

Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280140?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12097913-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5280140?

The tribunal order states: Giles Ellis to pay Sustainable Properties (Anderson) Limited $1,000.00 from the

How much money was awarded in case 5280140?

Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280140?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12097913-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 10, 97 Jervois Road, Herne Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5280140 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280140 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,000.00	Cleaning
Net award	$1,000.00
Bond	$6,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,000.00

Order

Giles Ellis to pay Sustainable Properties (Anderson) Limited $1,000.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,400.00 (5921462-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Sustainable Properties (Anderson) Limited: $1,000.00 Giles Ellis: $5,400.00
The remainder of the landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the mutual end of the fixed term tenancy in May 2025.

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 landlord seeks cleaning costs totalling $3,165.00 for carpet cleaning, professional cleaning, windows and balustrade cleaning.
However, apart from invoices from cleaners, no other independent evidence has been adduced by the landlord. There was no property condition report at the end of the tenancy. There were no photographs showing the state of the premises at the end of the premises.
The onus remained on the landlord to prove that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. Mere tendering of cleaning invoices is insufficient.
That said, the tenant accepts responsibility for some of the cleaning costs. The tenant voluntarily accepts liability for $1,000.00 of the cleaning costs and only $1,000.00.
On the basis of the tenant’s acceptance of liability, I award $1,000.00 from the tenant’s bond towards the cleaning costs in settlement of the landlord’s claims to do with cleaning.
I now address the remainder of the landlord’s claims for compensation.

Did the tenant breach the tenancy agreement and deed dated 21 April 2025?

The landlord claims the return of some of the monies paid to the tenant after reaching an agreement with the tenant for early termination of the parties’ fixed term tenancy. The landlord claims that she has executed a deed dated 21 April 2025 offering to pay the tenant $58,000 under duress and “extortion”. The landlord considers only $17,000.00 to be fair consideration for asking the tenant to surrender the tenancy for better marketing of the property for sale.
However, the terms of the deed dated 21 April 2025 recording the early and mutual termination of the fixed term tenancy on 13 May 2025 had been entered into by the parties voluntarily and in writing, and by deed.
The deed provides that in consideration of the landlord paying $58,000 to the tenant, the parties agree for the fixed term tenancy in place to end on 13 May 2025 instead of 18 November 2025 as set out under the tenancy agreement signed on 18 October 2024.
Clause 2.8 of the deed specifically provides that the deed constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the matters dealt with and there are no oral or written understandings, representations or commitments of any kind, express or implied, not expressly set out in the deed.
It appears to me that the landlord is feeling some form of ‘buyer’s remorse’ after entering into the deed and paying the consideration negotiated upon and finally accepting the consideration of $58,000 for asking the tenant to mutually terminate the fixed term tenancy early.
I reject the landlord’s bare assertion that she was under economic duress when she accepted the tenant’s offer of $58,000 to mutually terminate the fixed term tenancy.
It is not for the Tribunal or any Court to reopen agreements reached voluntarily between the parties. The tenant has duly vacated the premises on 13 May 2025 and kept to his part of the bargain. The landlord has also since paid the full $58,000 as consideration as set out under the deed.
Further, section 11(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘the Act’) provides that a landlord is not prevented from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by the Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by the Act. In order words, there is nothing untoward with the tenant having negotiated a hugely favourable sum of consideration for his early surrender of the fixed term tenancy because the Act permits a landlord to incur more extensive obligations.
If, the tenant had been in breach of his obligations in respect of cleanliness and tidiness during the tenancy as alleged by the landlord, it would be in order for the landlord to apply to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy in which case the Tribunal must then weigh up whether the alleged breach by the tenant, if proved, is of such nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse the landlord’s application for termination. See section 56 of the Act.
Having chosen the route of paying the tenant off (at a handsome of sum of consideration totalling $58,000.00 which was mutually agreed upon) to end the fixed term tenancy, it is not in order for the landlord to now contend buyer’s remorse and seek a portion of the agreed consideration stated on the deed back.
For those reasons, I dismiss the remainder of the landlord’s claims for compensation in its entirety. Conclusion
Only the amounts ordered are proved.
The bond will now be disbursed to the parties as set out in table above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280140 — net $1,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$1,000.00	Cleaning
Net award	$1,000.00
Bond	$6,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,000.00

Order

Giles Ellis to pay Sustainable Properties (Anderson) Limited $1,000.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,400.00 (5921462-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Sustainable Properties (Anderson) Limited: $1,000.00 Giles Ellis: $5,400.00
The remainder of the landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the mutual end of the fixed term tenancy in May 2025.

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 landlord seeks cleaning costs totalling $3,165.00 for carpet cleaning, professional cleaning, windows and balustrade cleaning.
However, apart from invoices from cleaners, no other independent evidence has been adduced by the landlord. There was no property condition report at the end of the tenancy. There were no photographs showing the state of the premises at the end of the premises.
The onus remained on the landlord to prove that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. Mere tendering of cleaning invoices is insufficient.
That said, the tenant accepts responsibility for some of the cleaning costs. The tenant voluntarily accepts liability for $1,000.00 of the cleaning costs and only $1,000.00.
On the basis of the tenant’s acceptance of liability, I award $1,000.00 from the tenant’s bond towards the cleaning costs in settlement of the landlord’s claims to do with cleaning.
I now address the remainder of the landlord’s claims for compensation.

Did the tenant breach the tenancy agreement and deed dated 21 April 2025?

The landlord claims the return of some of the monies paid to the tenant after reaching an agreement with the tenant for early termination of the parties’ fixed term tenancy. The landlord claims that she has executed a deed dated 21 April 2025 offering to pay the tenant $58,000 under duress and “extortion”. The landlord considers only $17,000.00 to be fair consideration for asking the tenant to surrender the tenancy for better marketing of the property for sale.
However, the terms of the deed dated 21 April 2025 recording the early and mutual termination of the fixed term tenancy on 13 May 2025 had been entered into by the parties voluntarily and in writing, and by deed.
The deed provides that in consideration of the landlord paying $58,000 to the tenant, the parties agree for the fixed term tenancy in place to end on 13 May 2025 instead of 18 November 2025 as set out under the tenancy agreement signed on 18 October 2024.
Clause 2.8 of the deed specifically provides that the deed constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the matters dealt with and there are no oral or written understandings, representations or commitments of any kind, express or implied, not expressly set out in the deed.
It appears to me that the landlord is feeling some form of ‘buyer’s remorse’ after entering into the deed and paying the consideration negotiated upon and finally accepting the consideration of $58,000 for asking the tenant to mutually terminate the fixed term tenancy early.
I reject the landlord’s bare assertion that she was under economic duress when she accepted the tenant’s offer of $58,000 to mutually terminate the fixed term tenancy.
It is not for the Tribunal or any Court to reopen agreements reached voluntarily between the parties. The tenant has duly vacated the premises on 13 May 2025 and kept to his part of the bargain. The landlord has also since paid the full $58,000 as consideration as set out under the deed.
Further, section 11(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘the Act’) provides that a landlord is not prevented from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by the Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by the Act. In order words, there is nothing untoward with the tenant having negotiated a hugely favourable sum of consideration for his early surrender of the fixed term tenancy because the Act permits a landlord to incur more extensive obligations.
If, the tenant had been in breach of his obligations in respect of cleanliness and tidiness during the tenancy as alleged by the landlord, it would be in order for the landlord to apply to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy in which case the Tribunal must then weigh up whether the alleged breach by the tenant, if proved, is of such nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse the landlord’s application for termination. See section 56 of the Act.
Having chosen the route of paying the tenant off (at a handsome of sum of consideration totalling $58,000.00 which was mutually agreed upon) to end the fixed term tenancy, it is not in order for the landlord to now contend buyer’s remorse and seek a portion of the agreed consideration stated on the deed back.
For those reasons, I dismiss the remainder of the landlord’s claims for compensation in its entirety. Conclusion
Only the amounts ordered are proved.
The bond will now be disbursed to the parties as set out in table above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280140 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 10, 97 Jervois Road, Herne Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280140 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 10, 97 Jervois Road, Herne Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Did the tenant breach the tenancy agreement and deed dated 21 April 2025?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

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?

Did the tenant breach the tenancy agreement and deed dated 21 April 2025?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions