What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300851 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 5300851?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300851?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12500323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300851 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 5300851?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300851?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12500323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Magee Place, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300851 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Mikayla Barclay Smith and Tauwhare Ranga to pay [The landlord/s] $1,624.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,624.52 Mikayla Barclay Smith and Tauwhare Ranga: $695.48

Reasons

[Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenants appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 30 January 2021 and was periodic. The tenants gave 21 days’ notice terminating the tenancy and vacated the property on 19 June 2025.
Following the end of the tenancy the parties engaged in a negotiation in an attempt to settle a dispute over rent arrears, cleaning and repair costs.
On 6 July 2025 the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” 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. b. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 June 2025. The landlord said the tenants paid rent to 17 June 2025 and failed to pay rent for the two days they remained in the property after postponing their move out date. The landlord seeks $165.71 in rent arrears.
The tenants stated they vacated the property on 18 June 2025 and went back to clean on 19 June 2025 when the final inspection took place. The tenants accepted they had agreed to pay rent for the extra two days in the property but thought it would total “$90.00 at most”.
The Tribunal calculated the daily rent for the property under the contract as $82.86. Having heard from the parties and reviewing the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenants owe rent arrears of $165.71 and the amount claimed is awarded.

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) of the Act. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) of the Act. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning
The landlord seeks cleaning costs of $420.00 after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs which showed the cleanliness of the property at the end of the tenancy. The property was visibly dirty, cupboards had not been wiped out, fly dirt was visible throughout, the bathroom and toilet and laundry had not been properly cleaned, and the floors had not been vacuumed or swept.
The tenant’s stated that they had tried to clean the property before leaving but acknowledged several areas had not been cleaned and other areas were not cleaned to the required standard. The tenants stated they would have liked to have gone back to the property to continue to clean and, by their own estimation, said at least one or two more days of cleaning was required to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Analysis and decision
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in immaculate condition- only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. Having heard from the parties and reviewing all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenants failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and the amount claimed is reasonable and awarded. Rubbish removal
The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $590.80 and provided an invoice in the amount claimed. The landlord said that tenants failed to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy and provided end of tenancy photographs which showed rubbish, toys, and items of furniture left behind which their contractor disposed of.
The tenants accepted leaving behind some items at the end of the tenancy including toys, rubbish and an incinerator but stated that a shelving unit, a bench and a small set of draws were already present when they moved in.
The landlord was unable to provide the Tribunal with any pre-tenancy inspection photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord changed property management companies sometime in September/October 2021 and the previous property manager failed to forward these documents on. Analysis and decision
The tenants, by their own admission, failed to remove all items and rubbish at the end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and reviewing all of the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the shelving unit, bench, and draws were left behind by the tenant and deduct $50.00 from the amount claimed to reflect the cost of their disposal. The amount of $540.80 is awarded. Lightbulbs
The landlord seeks $20.00 for light bulbs missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepts the light bulbs were missing and did not dispute the amount claimed. The amount claimed is ordered.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
At the hearing the landlord stated they sought compensation of $993.77 after paying a contractor to undertake repairs to the property including: a. Repair of plaster patch in the corner of a room b. Exterior patch of a hole by the back door c. Cracks to interior plaster on walls d. Small hole in the sunroom wall e. Repair of the garage wall f. Removal of garage ceiling boards and recover broken ceiling fan g. Replace missing architraves h. Replacement glazing of lounge windowpane i. Replacement of ripped and mould damaged curtains and nets
The Tribunal does not have an invoice for the amount claimed. The landlord has provided one invoice totalling $1,408.75 from a contractor which showed repair costs for wall and garage remediation of $480.00 + GST, and curtain and net curtain replacement costs of $745.00 + GST. There is a separate invoice for glazing totalling $320.00.
The landlord alleged the tenants damaged the walls and the roof in the garage after dividing the space into a series of cannabis grow rooms.
The landlord seeks $414.98, half the cost of replacing the curtains in the property. The landlord claims some of the net curtains were ripped, some curtains were missing and some of the curtains were so heavily soiled by mould they could not be cleaned.
The tenants deny any responsibility for the damage to the property with the exception of cracked plaster in one of the rooms and said all damage was pre- existing when they moved in.
The tenant’s denied making any modifications to the garage and denied using the premises to grow cannabis.
The tenant’s claimed the windowpane had a hole in it when they moved into the property which they asked the landlord to fix. The tenant’s said the landlord did repair the glass in the front door as well as cracks in the front sliding door, but this issue was never resolved.
The tenants accept that the net curtains were torn by their children and acknowledge the poor condition of the other curtains in the property. However, the tenants blamed the mould soiled curtains on the poor window and doorframe seals which they say created condensation which contributed to their poor condition. Analysis and decision
The landlord was unable to provide the Tribunal with any pre-tenancy inspection reports or photographs detailing the condition of the property when the tenants moved in.
With the exception of the damage to the cracked plaster in one room, which the tenant’s accepts responsibility for, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the evidence before it that the tenants are responsible for the damage to the interior and exterior walls of the property or damage to the garage. The Tribunal awards $50.00 compensation for damage to the cracked plaster.
The landlord produced a photograph taken during a routine inspection to show the condition of the windowpane during the tenancy. In the photograph the glass pane was obscured by a net curtain and not sufficiently clear to allow the Tribunal to make a proper assessment of its condition. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the tenant is responsible for the damage to the glass and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord was unable to provide the Tribunal with an approximate age or details of the condition of the net curtains and curtains at the commencement of the tenancy. The Tribunal has heard from the tenants that their children ripped the net curtains causing damage. Having heard from both parties and considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenants are responsible for damage to the net curtains and award $200.00 compensation. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name Suppression
Under section 95A of the Act, a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so. The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300851 — Cleanliness at 25 Magee Place, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300851 — Cleanliness at 25 Magee Place, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?