What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5294563 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $633.00, as calculated in the table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5294563?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Gas Bottles: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294563?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12415890-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5294563 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $633.00, as calculated in the table below:

How much money was awarded in case 5294563?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Gas Bottles: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294563?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294563?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12415890-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Water Lane, Waitao, RD 5, Tauranga 3175 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5294563 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5294563. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Gas bottles	$260.00	Gas bottles
Carpet repair	$207.00	Carpet repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5294563. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Gas bottles	$260.00	Gas bottles
Carpet repair	$207.00	Carpet repair

Order

[The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $633.00, as calculated in the table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy commenced on 23 March 2024. The tenant signed an agreement for the period of 89 days from 23 March 2024 (‘the agreement’). Rent was $700.00 per week. The agreement did not assert any governance under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The parties agreed to extend the short-term tenancy and a further rental agreement was signed, similar to the agreement. It however, provided that there was no end date and either party would simply need to give two weeks’ notice to terminate.
Prior to this, the property had always been rented as short-term accommodation.
During the tenancy, the tenants asked if while they were overseas on holiday, the landlord could put temporary tenants in the property (for example, on Airbnb or similar). The property was advertised for this purpose twice and it had temporary tenants once for a period of 10 days.
The tenants gave notice and moved out of the property on around 10 May 2025.
The landlord has since claimed vacated damages and the tenants dispute most of these costs. There was a previous mediation where the parties agreed that the tenant would be liable for the costs of refilling the gas bottle and the carpet repair (on production of the invoice). The mediator requested that this be included in the final order.
The tenants sought a refund of the bond less these agreed costs. Accordingly, I have included these agreed costs of $260.00 for refilling the gas bottle(s) and $207.00 for the carpet repair.
The tenants submit that this situation was governed by the RTA since it was for a tenancy that was more than 89 days. The landlords state that they never intended for it to be a tenancy governed by the RTA.
Both parties have provided significant evidence including photographs and I confirm that I have reviewed all evidence, even if there is no direct reference to it.

Is this a tenancy?

It is first necessary to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this matter.
Section 77(1) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlord and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.
Section 2(1) of the RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy and where appropriate includes a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises.
The terms residential premises, tenancy and tenancy agreement are defined in s2(1) of the RTA as: a. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful. b. Tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactments; and where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy. c. Tenancy agreement, in relationship to any residential premises means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of the tenancy agreement.
Here the premises are residential, there was a right to occupy in exchange for rent, and this was formalised by a written agreement.
Section 7 of the RTA provides that nothing in sections 25-28 and 51 shall apply to a tenancy for a fixed term of not more than 90 days, if before the commencement of the tenancy, the parties agree that in writing that the tenancy will not be extended or renewed to give a total length of the term more than 90 days.
Where such a tenancy is extended or renewed, whether once or more than once, with the result that the total length of the term exceeds 90 days, on the expiry of that period of 90 days the tenancy shall become subject to sections 25 to 28 and 51 (as well as all other provisions). See section 7(2) of the RTA.
So, here originally these sections would not have applied as the tenancy was fixed for 89 days, however, at the point that the tenancy was extended beyond 90 days, all provisions did apply.
Finally, did the Airbnb by the landlord to other parties during the tenancy change anything?
I do not consider that it did. There are several cases where a tenant subletting a property, or in other words providing a licence to occupy to a third party, would not affect the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Just because here, the landlord had been responsible for the subletting, it had been so at the request of the tenant and in my view should be considered in the same way.
I find that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to consider the dispute. Civil burden of proof
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

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) RTA.
The landlord claims for the invoiced cleaning costs of $594.00 they say was required to the kitchen (including ovens, fridge, and cupboards), bathroom, lounge, dining, and bedrooms and was also required to remove the smell at the property before new tenants could move in.
The tenants say they did clean the house and provided evidence in support. They say that the invoice is for 22 hours of cleaning which seems excessive in the circumstances and raised some questions around the invoice validity.
On review of the evidence although I accept that the tenants did carry out cleaning it appears that some further cleaning was still required. This was particularly so inside some of the drawers, bathroom, and shower, around windowsills and to the oven. However, a complete clean of the entire house was not required to reach the standard of reasonably clean and tidy and I have reduced the amount awarded to $300.00 to reflect this.
The amount ordered is proved.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims for sheet replacement of $250.00, a broken heated towel rail costs of $302.00 and lost rent of $700.00 for when repairs were being carried out and the landlord was unable to re-tenant. The was no pre-tenancy inspection report done.
With respect to the broken heated towel rail, the landlord says it was installed in December 2022 by a qualified electrician (when the bathroom was re-done) but that after the tenancy it was not working. When they checked they discovered that someone had pulled the cables from where they were internally attached from their connection to the wall plate. The cords had then been disguised by someone pushing the cords back through the faceplate. The tenants submitted that it was never working, and they just never worried about it. Photographs have been provided of the cut cords.
The landlord also says that there were sheets at the property, and that at the end of the tenancy these were no longer there. They claim $250.00 for the estimated cost of replacement sheets. The tenants say they do not know where the sheets are, that they did not take them, and they had their own sets of sheets. Text messages have been provided during the tenancy where the tenants ask if they can have a replacement mattress protector as one of them had disintegrated.
However, this issue with both these claims as I cannot find that it is more likely than not that the tenants caused this damage or loss carelessly or intentionally during the tenancy. There was no pre-tenancy inspection report and no list of chattels (including sheets) included with the agreement. It is not clear whether the heated towel rail was working in 2024 at the commencement of the tenancy. I also note that this was approximately two years after installation and series of short-term rentals. It is all too uncertain and I consider that it does not reach the required standard of more likely than not.
In addition, I consider that it is unrealistic for a landlord to have no break between tenants, particularly after a tenancy of this length. One week is a reasonable length of time to carry out the usual maintenance and requirements before a new tenant can move in and I also have not found liability for the damage (resulting in repairs and re-tenant delay). Accordingly, the claim for lost rent is dismissed.
The claims by the landlord are dismissed.
As both parties have had some success, I have not refunded the filing fee to either party and consider that these costs should lie where they fall. Neither party sought name suppression. N.P., I apologise to both parties for the delay in issuing this decision. I had intended to issue this earlier however a family bereavement cause unexpected delays. R Harvey-Lane 28 September 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294563 — Cleanliness at 31 Water Lane, Waitao, RD 5, Tauranga 3175

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294563 — Cleanliness at 31 Water Lane, Waitao, RD 5, Tauranga 3175

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is this a tenancy?

Did the tenant comply with their 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

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is this a tenancy?

Did the tenant comply with their 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