What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284142 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5284142?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $560.82 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5182576 D…: $547.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $497.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284142?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12299548-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5284142 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5284142?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $560.82 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5182576 D…: $547.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $497.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5284142?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5284142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12299548-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 21 Onukutara Place, Huntington, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5284142 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284142 — net $3,097.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5182576 dated 20/05/2025	$547.00	Previous order application 5182576 dated 20/05/2025
Cleaning	$560.82	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$200.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning blinds and curtains and cat odour treatment	$750.00	Cleaning blinds and curtains and cat odour treatment
Rubbish removal	$497.95	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$140.00	Lock/key replacement
Wall repairs	$375.00	Wall repairs
__________________________________________________________________________________ 52841422 Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 52841422 Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,097.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,097.87

Both parties attended the hearing – the landlord by video conference and the tenant by teleconference.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with his 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 photographs show that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The walls, floors and cupboards were dirty as were the blinds and curtains.

There was also rubbish left behind largely in the form of wooden pallets and a full rubbish bin, which the tenant accepted.

The tenant refuted that he had a cat at the premises and therefore should not pay for the cat urine odour treatment.

However, I am satisfied that he ought to pay this cost because I accept that there was cat urine odour as tested by the carpet cleaning company, and it was likely that it was his wife’s cat who had come into the house.

I am dismissing that part of the claim that relates to reinstating the lawn and weeding. This is because there are no photos of the area that was weeded prior to the tenancy starting and the tenant states that this area was always weedy.

I am also dismissing that part of the claim that relates to reinstating the lawn because the pre-entry photos show that the lawn was already in poor condition.

The tenant accepts that he did not return the keys and so he is liable for the cost of the replacement lock.

The amounts ordered are proved by invoices.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 tenant 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is careless or intentional.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose.

The landlord claims $439.88 as the invoiced cost of repairing walls throughout the premises and in the garage.

I am reducing this claim to $375.00 because although the tenant accepted that he had intentionally put nails and clips throughout the premises and had put cellotape on the walls which caused the walls to be damaged when it was taken off, he did not accept that he had put all the nails and screws in the garage. There were no pre-entry photos to evidence whether there were already nails and screws in the garage and so this part of the claim has not been proven to the required standard. I also consider that a small part of the damage repaired was fair wear and tear.

I am also dismissing the claim for the cost of replacing the exterior cedar corner cap. I regard this damage as being inevitable, and beyond the tenant’s control, when there are a number of cats wandering the neighbourhood. Filing fee reimbursement

I am also ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful with the claim against him. C ter Haar 21 August 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5284142 — net $3,097.87 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5182576 dated 20/05/2025	$547.00	Previous order application 5182576 dated 20/05/2025
Cleaning	$560.82	Cleaning
Carpet cleaning	$200.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning blinds and curtains and cat odour treatment	$750.00	Cleaning blinds and curtains and cat odour treatment
Rubbish removal	$497.95	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$140.00	Lock/key replacement
Wall repairs	$375.00	Wall repairs
__________________________________________________________________________________ 52841422 Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 52841422 Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,097.87
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,097.87

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Adam Pointon must pay the Landlord $3097.87 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing – the landlord by video conference and the tenant by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with his 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 photographs show that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The walls, floors and cupboards were dirty as were the blinds and curtains.
There was also rubbish left behind largely in the form of wooden pallets and a full rubbish bin, which the tenant accepted.
The tenant refuted that he had a cat at the premises and therefore should not pay for the cat urine odour treatment.
However, I am satisfied that he ought to pay this cost because I accept that there was cat urine odour as tested by the carpet cleaning company, and it was likely that it was his wife’s cat who had come into the house.
I am dismissing that part of the claim that relates to reinstating the lawn and weeding. This is because there are no photos of the area that was weeded prior to the tenancy starting and the tenant states that this area was always weedy.
I am also dismissing that part of the claim that relates to reinstating the lawn because the pre-entry photos show that the lawn was already in poor condition.
The tenant accepts that he did not return the keys and so he is liable for the cost of the replacement lock.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 tenant 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is careless or intentional.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose.
The landlord claims $439.88 as the invoiced cost of repairing walls throughout the premises and in the garage.
I am reducing this claim to $375.00 because although the tenant accepted that he had intentionally put nails and clips throughout the premises and had put cellotape on the walls which caused the walls to be damaged when it was taken off, he did not accept that he had put all the nails and screws in the garage. There were no pre-entry photos to evidence whether there were already nails and screws in the garage and so this part of the claim has not been proven to the required standard. I also consider that a small part of the damage repaired was fair wear and tear.
I am also dismissing the claim for the cost of replacing the exterior cedar corner cap. I regard this damage as being inevitable, and beyond the tenant’s control, when there are a number of cats wandering the neighbourhood. Filing fee reimbursement
I am also ordering the tenant to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful with the claim against him. C ter Haar 21 August 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284142 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 21 Onukutara Place, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5284142 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 21 Onukutara Place, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions