What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299499 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,699.29 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5299499?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Loss: $414.29 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom/Kitchen Walls: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cabinet Door In Bedroom: $50.00 awarded to landlord; X2 Windows: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,430.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299499?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12251664-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299499 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,699.29 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5299499?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Loss: $414.29 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom/Kitchen Walls: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Cabinet Door In Bedroom: $50.00 awarded to landlord; X2 Windows: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,430.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299499?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12251664-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

225 Glover Road, Hawera, Hawera 4610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5299499 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299499 — net $2,699.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement: Backdoor and front door - Labour and materials	$150.00	Lock/key replacement: Backdoor and front door - Labour and materials
Rubbish removal: Labour	$920.00	Rubbish removal: Labour
Rubbish removal: Skip hire x 3	$1,430.00	Rubbish removal: Skip hire x 3
Cleaning: General cleaning	$600.00	23. The sum ordered is proven.
Carpet Cleaning: Carpet cleaning	$400.00	23. The sum ordered is proven.
Repairs: x2 windows	$350.00	Repairs: x2 windows
Window repairs: Garage window in double garage	$50.00	Window repairs: Garage window in double garage
Repairs: Bedroom sliding door repairs	$150.00	Repairs: Bedroom sliding door repairs
Repairs: Cabinet door in bedroom	$50.00	Repairs: Cabinet door in bedroom
Repairs: Bedroom/kitchen walls	$100.00	Repairs: Bedroom/kitchen walls
Rent loss	$414.29	Rent loss
Exterior clean	$30.00	Exterior clean
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,699.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,699.29

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $2,699.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,973.00 (5708146-009) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately.

The landlord’s claims for double garage lock replacement, curtain tracks and wires, oven replacement, window handles, kitchen cabinet panels, door handle, door with drawing, hot water reset, living room painting and landlord’s time is dismissed.

The landlord’s claim for damage to her garage not forming part of the tenancy agreement is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

This tenancy ended following an order terminating the tenancy made by the Tribunal.

The landlord now brings numerous claims for compensation arising at the end of the tenancy. Civil burden of proof

As 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 in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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.

This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: like 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. Rubbish, cleaning and locks

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. Rubbish

The landlord says there was extensive rubbish left around and throughout the property. The property was terminated by the Tribunal on the basis of it not being reasonably clean and tidy and rubbish being significant in volume. The landlord says the same rubbish remained outside when the tenancy ended.

She says she hired a skip in the days before the tenancy ended but the tenants loaded it with their things. She had to hire another skip for rubbish inside the premises and the rubbish outside the premises including that in the garage.

I accept that the volume of rubbish was significant enough to require the three skips the landlord says she had to hire. The cost of this has been proven by invoices and bank payments.

The landlord says that the new tenant helped with the clean up and he took 20 hours (5 hours with 4 people) taking the tenant’s rubbish and filling to capacity the first skip. The other items were left outside and other skips then ordered. The tenant’s handyman then completed the job taking another 12 hours.

I find the time taken here to be high. While the evidence does not support a claim for the number of hours claimed the sum sought is reasonable overall being $360 for the handyman and the $560 for the new tenant’s work ($920 in total). The rubbish was widespread, in part bulky and some of it unpleasant in nature.

In summary, for rubbish disposal, I award $920 for the labour costs and $1430 for the skip hire. Cleaning

The landlord says that the property needed cleaning throughout, and I accept from the photographs shown that the tenant had not cleaned it. It was not left reasonably clean and tidy. She says her handyman charged $720 – with an hourly rate of $30 per hour for the general cleaning although this sum forms part of a wider invoice.

That sum excludes the cost of cleaning the oven and the carpets.

The landlord says that the whole property needed cleaning throughout and the cleaning included wiping walls, ceilings and windows. She says she felt that the walls and ceilings needed wiping after being told about drug use. The property is a 4 bedroom home with 2 showers and 2 toilets with a living room and laundry.

I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that there was a need to extensively clean walls, ceilings and windows on any basis including any alleged drug use (no drug use was proven with the landlord having no probative evidence and no evidence that any such use would necessitate and therefore the cleaning done likely exceeded that that is required to restore the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

I am however satisfied that a significant amount of cleaning was necessary and based on the evidence before me I consider it reasonable to award the landlord the sum of $600 for cleaning the premises.

The landlord claims 3.5 hours at $30 per hour for oven cleaning. There is no photographic evidence of the state of the oven prior to it being cleaned. In the absence of such evidence, I decline to award a sum towards the cleaning of the oven. The claim is not proven.

I accept that the carpets were not returned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Items were left all over them and there were stains throughout including some larger ones.

The landlord claims $400 in respect of carpet cleaning and given the extent of the marking on the floor and the size of the property I consider this sum to be reasonable.

The sum ordered is proven. Exterior cleaning

The landlord claimed $300 for cleaning the exterior being: cleaning after rubbish had been removed, cleaning a deck, cleaning the garage floor and cleaning the exterior walls.

I award the landlord $30 in respect of this cleaning. I award this amount because given the volume of black rubbish sacks left at the premises it is reasonable to have cleaned the area they were on. $30 is an hour of the landlord’s handyman’s time which I consider to be reasonable.

I do not consider the tenant responsible for cleaning the other areas as those claims were not proven. The landlord did not show areas that were unreasonably unclean and in any event maintaining the exterior of a property (e.g. water blasting exterior walls) is a landlord obligation. Locks for house and double garage

The landlord says that the locks had to be replaced.

She says that the back door lock was missing completely and provided a photograph of that. She says the front door key was not returned and provided messages with the tenant communicating about the return of the key but that was never returned.

Materials claimed for this work are said to total $249.78 and labour costs are said to be 2-3 hours at $28 an hour. The work was done on the landlord’s behalf by the new tenant and an invoice has been provided.

I am satisfied keys were not returned. I award the landlord a total of $150 for labour and materials. I have not awarded the landlord the full material cost as set out above because the lock material costs have not been specified in the handyman’s invoice but they are mixed with a claim for curtain tracks and wires (which I have dismissed below). I have therefore made an adjustment to material costs with an outcome that I consider to be fair and reasonable for both parties on the evidence before me.

The landlord says two new locks were put on the double garage. I am not satisfied that the landlord has suitably proven that the tenant had keys to this garage at the start of the tenancy. The evidence was “I think they should have”. This is not sufficient to meet the necessary burden of proof.

This part of the claim is dismissed. Damage

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 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.

Further, everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. If an item has to be replaced earlier because of tenant damage, and is replaced with a newer or better item, then the compensation needs to be adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be in a better position after a claim in the Tribunal, than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. The Tribunal often considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The Tribunal rarely accepts claims for damage compensation where the landlord has only provided quotes. The onus is on the landlord to show actual loss, and this is usually achieved by the filing of tax invoices and expense receipts.

The landlord says that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: Wires and curtain tracks

The landlord says that the tenant removed a curtain wires and tracks over a cupboard and one window had a curtain track missing.

The evidence presented to me was far from clear. There was no ingoing inspection report and in relation to the window, when presented with a photograph of the missing track, I could still see a track in place.

I am not satisfied that the landlord has sufficiently proven that there are missing tracks/wires.

In any event curtain tracks and wires will not last forever.

Given that this tenancy lasted for around 4 years it is likely that these items would have fully depreciated and so no award would have been made in any event.

This claim is dismissed. Oven replacement

The landlord seeks $549 for an oven she says the tenants damaged. She also seeks $50 for her handyman to collect it and bring it to the tenancy address.

However, there is no evidence of the condition of the oven at the start of the tenancy there is no photographic, video or any written evidence as to condition. The landlord says that the bottom of the oven is now corroded and has holes.

She says this is due to the lack of cleaning. The landlord says that she “thinks” the oven was new at the start of the tenancy but was unable to provide evidence of this. The photograph provided of the oven after it was cleaned shows a close-up picture of the bottom of the inside of the oven that I accept does show some wear seemingly to the coating/paintwork.

In the absence of any probative evidence as to the age and condition of the oven at the start of the tenancy or in the condition the tenant left it in, I am not satisfied that the landlord has sufficiently proven her claim. I am not persuaded by the landlord’s vague evidence about the age and condition of the oven at the start of the tenancy.

I am not satisfied that the landlord has met the necessary standard of proof because I cannot be sufficiently certain what damage occurred during the course of the tenancy.

This part of the claim is dismissed. Windows in home x 2 and double garage

The landlord says that the window on the bedroom on the street was broken and the window in the laundry was broken during the course of the tenancy. I was shown photographs showing the damage.

An invoice was provided as the windows were repaired by glaziers. The glaziers also replaced a missing handle that the landlord says has completely gone from the laundry window but that was there at the end of the tenancy.

I have no reason to doubt the landlord’s evidence that the glass was intact at the start of the tenancy. She says she lived in the property herself prior to this tenancy starting. I would expect a tenant to raise this as an issue during the course of a tenancy if windows are missing. Windows are significant parts of a house that would be immediately noticeable when missing.

Given the nature of the damage I am satisfied that the broken glass is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for that damage. Given the fact there are a number of broken windows at the property I am satisfied this is most likely intentional damage. I do not consider it appropriate to depreciate the replacement of glass.

Without better evidence of the existence and condition of the handle at the start of the tenancy I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy or that in any event this is anything other than wear and tear. Handles on windows do not last indefinitely.

One handle claimed for on the glaziers invoice was not explainable at all – the tenant not being able to provide details.

I dismiss the application for the handles.

While the invoice for the glass replacement does not break down the individual cost elements of the glass and handles (or their labour) the landlord says she would expect a handle to cost around $35.

I am satisfied it would be fair to award the landlord the sum of $350 for the cost of the glass. I have made an adjustment to the sum claimed to remove the likely cost of the handles as well as some labour costs for the fitting of those handles because that has been dismissed.

The landlord also says that one window was removed from the double garage. She provided a photograph that I accept shows a glass panel missing.

I have no reason to doubt the landlord’s position that the window was in place at the start of the tenancy because the landlord lived there just before this tenancy began and it would be an obvious defect.

In the absence of better evidence of the repair and importantly the precise cost of the repair (the landlord was estimating the repair cost as her handyman who did the work had not broken down his costs) I consider it fair to award the landlord the sum of $50 in respect of this damage. Bedroom window handle and kitchen cabinet panels

The landlord says a bedroom window handle is broken but there is no probative evidence of this. She also says there is damage to kitchen cabinets but there is no probative evidence of this either.

In the absence of any probative evidence whatsoever, I find the landlord has not proven that this damage, if any, occurred during the course of the tenancy or if anything other than fair wear and tear.

The claim is dismissed. Sliding doors in bedroom

The landlord says that a cupboard in the bedroom had three sliding doors at the start of the tenancy but at the end of the tenancy there was just one. The new tenant located one of the missing doors in the garage. Another door had to be obtained and then the doors rehung. A photograph of the damage was provided.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, given the nature of this damage and the fact the landlord lived in the house prior to this tenancy starting and this type of damage would be obvious to any observer, I find it more likely than not that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and that it is not fair wear and tear.

The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage and I find it most likely to be intentional damage given the fact one door was missing altogether and the other was located in the garage.

The landlord seeks $150 for the remedial works, and I consider this sum to be reasonable. The sum ordered is proven. The landlord says in addition the new tenant was also paid to locate the door in the shed. However, there is insufficient evidence to prove how long this work took, the amount he charged for that work or why it was necessary for a different tradesperson to locate the door. I make no award in relation to any such inspection work. Cabinet above sliding doors

The landlord says that a cabinet above the sliding doors referred to above had one door missing at the end of the tenancy.

A photograph of the damaged area was provided. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, given the nature of the damage and the fact the landlord lived in the house prior to this tenancy starting and this type of damage would be obvious to any observer, I find it more likely than not that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear.

The tenant has not disproven liability for the damage, and I find it most likely to be intentional damage given the type of damage.

The landlord seeks $50 to remedy the damage and I consider this to be a reasonable sum. The sum ordered is proven. Door with broken handle

The tenant says that the tenant damaged a door handle. This meant the door did not open and close properly.

A photograph was provided this shows the latch completely missing.

In the absence of a property inspection report from the start of the tenancy I am not willing to find that the landlord has sufficiently proven that this damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and in any event in the absence of better evidence, relating to the age and condition of the handle at the start of the tenancy I am not satisfied that the landlord is able to establish this is anything more than fair wear and tear.

The claim is dismissed. Door with drawing

The landlord says there is a door with a drawn picture on it and that it needed painting maybe three times. She claims $80.

There is no probative evidence whatsoever. I consider that the landlord has not sufficiently proven this claim so that I may make an award of compensation.

The claim is dismissed. Hot water reset

The landlord seeks $126.50 for a plumber who she says had to attend the property to reset the infinity to get hot water. The landlord says this was needed because the tenants did something to the electric. An invoice from an electrician sets out labour costs on both 5 June 2025 and 16 June 2025.

The electrician’s certificate reports how the main electric cable had ripped from the front of the house and left suspended in a dangerous condition needing urgent repair. It sets out that the electrician is unsure what caused this.

The landlord says that because there was no electric this meant the hot water infinity did not work and the “button” of the hot water “jumped up” and this required a plumber to reset it.

I am not satisfied that the landlord has suitably proven that the tenant’s damaged the electricity supply causing the hot water infinity to need to be reset by a plumber.

This part of the case is dismissed. Damage to walls - Painting

The landlord says the tenant painted the kitchen wall a different colour in patches – the colour was not the same and that the tenant also painted a white patch on a bedroom wall. The landlord also seeks compensation for damage to the living room wall. The landlord says the property was redecorated by herself in 2020. The landlord seeks $50 for each room where the damage was patch painted.

I am not satisfied that the evidence presented here amounts to anything more than fair wear and tear in the living room. That part of the case is dismissed.

I accept that the tenant more likely than not intentionally damaged the other walls by patch painting them with a different colour.

The landlord seeks $50 for the repainting in the kitchen and $50 for the bedroom. She has patched painted the wall so I do not consider a reduction to account for depreciation is necessary – the landlord has had no benefit. I award the landlord $100 for remedying this damage. Rent loss

The landlord says that she could not immediately rent out the house because she had to arrange the cleaning and repair work. She says she would have been able to find a new tenant immediately because it is easy to rent a property out in this location.

It took her 21 days from the day she gained possession to renting the property again. She then gave a rent credit of 3 days to the new tenant as the new oven was not yet installed.

The landlord claims $1740 which is 3 week’s rent at $580. She says this was due to the rubbish and the time for the carpet to dry.

The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do it, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. However, compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage. Therefore, the law does not provide for compensation where the damage is considered too remote, Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.

I am satisfied that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where significant repair work is required. Conversely, a realistic landlord’s business plan should include an allowance for some loss of rent between tenancies. A landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy. A reasonable landlord would foresee in the ordinary course that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance and repairs, even if caused by the actions of a tenant, especially after a four-year tenancy, as here.

In all the circumstances, given the extent of the rubbish and the number of skips needed and the cleaning work, particularly the carpets I consider it reasonable here to award the landlord 5 days of rent at $580 per week being $414.29.

When awarding this I have not taken into account any rental loss caused by the lack of an oven – I am not satisfied the landlord has sufficiently proven this and, in any event, in the absence of evidence to show otherwise I consider the landlord had more than enough time to install a new oven prior to the new tenancy starting and then there would have been no need for her to reduce the new tenant’s rent. Landlord’s time

The landlord sought $1000 for her own time in arranging the above.

This claim was insufficiently unparticularised and lacked detail and evidence to justify it. The claim is dismissed.

In any event, so far as it relates to the claims above, I consider this would simply be a “double up” on the costs already claimed. Furthermore, organising tradespeople is simply part of the landlord operating as her own “property manager” and arranging for tradespeople is part of ordinary business costs. Garage not part of tenancy agreement - Single garage door locks and windows

The landlord claims for a lock and two windows broken in the single garage which is a garage she retained for herself and this did not form part of the tenancy. She says that this the garage being excluded is on the tenancy agreement (although that document in not before me in full).

I dismiss this claim.

As this garage is not part of the premises that the tenant rented the allegations fall outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. These claims are dismissed.

A tenant’s obligations under the RTA apply to the premises provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant. If a tenant damages a different premises, that he or she has no right to be in this falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. This is because there is no landlord/tenant relationship in respect of those premises.

If this was not the case a tenant could be liable for damaging the landlord’s premises under the RTA whether the landlord’s property is next door, three streets away or even in the next city. I find that the fact that the garage is on the same section/near the tenanted area does not change this. Bond

Part of the bond has been already released to cover the filing fee when the termination order made by the Tribunal. I have released the remainder of the bond to the landlord to cover some of the costs as ordered. Filing fee

The landlord has been substantially successful so I award the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299499 — net $2,699.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement: Backdoor and front door - Labour and materials	$150.00	Lock/key replacement: Backdoor and front door - Labour and materials
Rubbish removal: Labour	$920.00	Rubbish removal: Labour
Rubbish removal: Skip hire x 3	$1,430.00	Rubbish removal: Skip hire x 3
Cleaning: General cleaning	$600.00	23. The sum ordered is proven.
Carpet Cleaning: Carpet cleaning	$400.00	23. The sum ordered is proven.
Repairs: x2 windows	$350.00	Repairs: x2 windows
Window repairs: Garage window in double garage	$50.00	Window repairs: Garage window in double garage
Repairs: Bedroom sliding door repairs	$150.00	Repairs: Bedroom sliding door repairs
Repairs: Cabinet door in bedroom	$50.00	Repairs: Cabinet door in bedroom
Repairs: Bedroom/kitchen walls	$100.00	Repairs: Bedroom/kitchen walls
Rent loss	$414.29	Rent loss
Exterior clean	$30.00	Exterior clean
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,699.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,699.29