Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5293380 — Rent arrears at 2 Matangi Street, Stoke, Nelson 7011
Decided 24 Oct 2025 · Published 24 Oct 2025 · Application 5293380
- Rent arrears
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- Jenna Alexandra Legge to pay Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Lauren Zamalis $2,400.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6488785-004) to Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Lauren Zamalis immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenant has applied for the retune of her bond and compensation.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The tenancy was under agency management but the tenant and owner had met and later engaged in a number of parallel discussions or actions. I note this was a proactive approach from the owner who compensated the tenant for heating costs when not required ($500.00). It did leave some uncertainty between owner and agent regarding awareness and management of some issues. I consider this became more apparent near the end of the tenancy.
- A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
- The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
- In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Landlord’s application
How much is owed for rent?
- The tenancy ended on 10 June 2025 after tenant notice to quit. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy is as ordered.
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 claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. A need to deodorise the carpet due to dog urine smell was claimed. A wall light required instatement.
- The landlord provided invoices in support of their claims. Usefully, the task list as provided to the contractors was also provided. These lists, and photos from both parties as provided, have been considered in conjunction with the invoices.
- The cleaning invoice claimed was the full costs of $617.50. It was apparent that the task list included a number of tasks not expected of a tenant.
- The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
- I accept there were areas missed that required further wiping or cleaning. These are not significant. Having considered the evidence and submissions I award $100.00 towards the cleaning cost as the tenant contribution.
- An invoice for carpet cleaning stated both a steam clean and deodorising were conducted. The task sheet acknowledged the carpet was clean – the issue was the smell. I heard from the tenant that she had completed a steam clean at the end of the tenancy, just before locking up and returning the keys to the landlord. She outlined the steps in managing the pets, certain that they could not have contributed to any odour smelled at the end of the tenancy.
- I accept it as more likely than not the unpleasant smell was a result of the pets and the cost of deodorising is a tenant liability. However, the invoiced effort indicated a duplication the cleaning and I award 50% of the invoice of $286.00 has tabled. That equates to an award of $143.00.
- The landlord provided an invoice for outdoor cleaning and some disposal of items. This was discussed at the hearing and, again, the tasks listed appear more than reasonably required of a tenant at exit. Some of the leaf and tree debris removed may have dropped or been blown in during the approximately two-week period between exit and landlord inspection. The ownership of the disposed items is not certain. I accept the tenant submission that the bed base in the garage at the end of the tenancy was pre-existing and not hers. I do not find the landlord has evidence any tenant liability and this claim is dismissed.
- A bedroom wall light was removed to accommodate the larger tenant bed, at the tenant’s request. This was stored but not reinstated at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice from the electrician for $126.50 to later reinstate. I accept the cost should be a tenant liability and award the full invoice.
- The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant application
- It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.
- Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
- Section 45 requires having some regard to the age and character of the premises (see section 45(1)(b) RTA).
- The premises before this tenancy was the family home of the owner. It was last occupied by her elderly father.
- The tenant recounted a number of maintenance issues.
- The first was in relation to toilet overflows. This was reported and attended to promptly. I heard of two such events over the 26-month tenancy. I consider the landlord response adequate.
- A slow draining shower was reported to the agent. The tenant claimed the response was not urgently handled, given it was the only shower for her and her children. The agent explained the triage processing of tenant requests labelled as “important” such as here. That status is one less in priority than “urgent” issues. Given the categorisation, I consider the landlord response (just) adequate and better communication would have helped the tenant.
- Tree and gutter maintenance was an ongoing issue for the tenant. The property had a number of large, mature trees. These provide a level of privacy but also shade. Tree debris was a problem for the guttering. The landlord provided invoices for both tress maintenance and gutter cleaning. I do not find the tenant has evidenced any specific failure and consequential impact that should attract compensation here.
- The biggest issue during this tenancy was electricity. The first tenant request was for additional plugs. This was addressed by the landlord although this is considered a positive gesture rather than an obligation as the tenant inspected the house and was aware of its history and state. She should have satisfied herself regarding the number of plugs before accepting the tenancy.
- The bigger problem in the house was the capacity of the electrical circuits under load. While parts had been upgraded to accommodate a heat pump installation, the power board retained some older style plugs.
- The tenant experienced issues with power tripping. This was mostly in the kitchen and laundry until an electrical change appears to have shifted the problem to the bedrooms.
- The positive relationship between the tenant and owner is evidenced in a series of emails. That meant the tenant, after the initial issues, worked around the load management required to avoid tripping. This impacted her use of concurrent appliances but there was no obvious demands made for remedy until 2025.
- There were a number of electrical invoices produced as evidence of ongoing attention to the problems as encountered.
- One electrical change was made in July 2024. That appears to have an unexpected consequence. It appears likely the load shifting to improve the capacity in other areas created an unexpected problem in the bedrooms. As the colder season in 2025 arrived, the tenant commenced heating the three bedrooms individually using plug-in heaters. This had been her practice over the two prior winters without issue.
- This time, the heaters when used caused tripping. This reduced the ability of the tenant to heat the bedrooms. This was a major concern for the tenant given some health vulnerabilities of her children.
- I accept the heating issue of this winter, prior to her leaving, had an unacceptable impact. That said, the attention to the electrical issues was still in play. An electrician commenced some work in February, but the tenant had an extended overseas trip with her children in March and it was April before any restart. This project was not focused on the bedroom circuits but elsewhere. The lack of load capacity to support the use of multiple heaters concurrently, as previously done, was not raised until on or around 12 May 2025 (evidentially, although the tenant believes she raised it earlier).
- While accepting the issue and the impact, it was part of an ongoing challenge with the electrical setup at the property. There was some accommodation by the tenant previously and I consider the failure of the electrical circuit for the bedrooms was unexpected, given the previous lack of issue over two winters. The landlord needed to be advised and given time to remedy. Some heating support in the interim would have been reasonable if notified. Given the history of previous contractor attention, I am not convinced this heating issue was ignored by the landlord. They did not have time to remedy before the tenant choose to leave. Some interim mitigation to provide heating may have been implemented piggybacking off the more robust circuitry elsewhere in the house through the use of extension cords or such.
- That said, the deficiencies of the electrical circuits under load were a known issue and, on balance, I consider some compensation for the heating challenges just before the end of the tenancy should be awarded. I have awarded $198.07. I had considered $200.00 appropriate, but this was rounded down to the amount awarded in the order for ease of bond distribution and to avoid a monetary order for just $1.97. Filing fee
- I leave each party to carry their filing costs. While the landlord has been substantially successful, the inflated invoices for cleaning and outside as sought from the tenant are considered unhelpful impediments to prior mutual resolution by the parties. Suppression
- Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The tenant requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is ordered.