How much money was awarded in case 5304259?

Cleaning: $661.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $113.85 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $370.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $82.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304259?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12466900-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5304259?

Cleaning: $661.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $113.85 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $370.00 awarded to tenant; Rubbish Removal: $82.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304259?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304259?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12466900-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Galbraith Street, Allenton, Ashburton 7700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304259 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304259 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Sibbe Investments Limited [The landlord/s] $1,087.60 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304259 — net $1,087.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$661.25		Cleaning
Clean driveway (consent	$113.85		Clean driveway (consent
Compensation for repairs to walls	$500.00		Compensation for repairs to walls
Lawn mowing	$100.00		Lawn mowing
Rubbish removal and dump fees	$82.50		Rubbish removal and dump fees
Rent refund		$370.00	Rent refund
Total award	$1,457.60	$370.00
Net award	$1,087.60
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,087.60

[The tenant/s] to pay Sibbe Investments Limited [The landlord/s] $1,087.60 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,200.00 (3150843-024) immediately apportioned as follows: • Sibbe Investments Limited and [The landlord/s]: • $1,087.60 • [The tenant/s]: • $112.40

The tenant’s application for compensation for the stove not working is dismissed.

The landlord’s application for compensation for the cost of replacing a bedroom window, for replacing the stove, and for supplying and installing curtains is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I allowed Mrs Lee to represent her son, the tenant. Mr Sibbe represented the landlord company Sibbe Investments Limited (SIL) of which he is a director.

The tenant has applied for a refund of his bond, the refund of 1 week’s rent, compensation for not having the use of a stove, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, lawn mowing, rubbish removal, the replacement cost of the stove, curtain replacement, the repair of damage, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background

The tenancy started in February 2022 at which time PGG Wrightson was the landlord. The tenancy was for a fixed term of one year following which it became a periodic tenancy. SIL purchased the premises while the tenancy was in place. No new tenancy agreement was entered between the parties; the initial tenancy was assigned to SIL.

The oven broke down twice. The landlord had it serviced the first time around January 2024. When it broke down the second time, Mr Sibbe, who is a qualified electrician but who does not hold a current practising certificate, wanted to assess it before contracting an electrician, but the tenant would not allow him to do that.

The tenancy ended on or about 27 June 2025. The tenant filed his application on 14 July 2025. The landlord filed its application the following day. Issues

The Tribunal must determine these issues: •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for the loss of use of the stove? •Has the tenant proved a claim for a refund of 1 week’s rent? •Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for cleaning, lawn mowing, rubbish removal, repairs, the replacement cost of curtains, and the replacement cost of the stove? Relevant law

Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.

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.

Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation

The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.

Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation for the loss of use of the stove?

The tenant accepts that the landlord had the stove serviced when it first broke down. He also accepts that he would not allow the landlord access to the stove the second time it broke down because he was concerned that the landlord was not licensed to repair it.

The landlord gave evidence that he was a qualified licensed electrician, but he did not hold a current practising certificate. He said he only wanted to assess the stove to see what was wrong, but he never intended to repair it. He employed a firm of electricians to do electrical repairs.

The tenant erred by not allowing the landlord to assess the stove. He was entitled to do that. To award compensation would be to reward the tenant’s failure to allow the landlord to assess a repair. The tenant’s actions resulted in him not having the full use of the stove.

I dismiss this claim. Has the tenant proved a claim for a refund of 1 week’s rent?

The landlord accepted he had been paid 1 week’s rent after the tenancy ended by Work and Income. He was unsure how to refund that. The rent belongs to the tenant. I have made an order for the landlord to pay the rent to the tenant. This means that the landlord has no obligation to do anything further. Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for cleaning, lawn mowing, rubbish removal, repairs, the replacement cost of curtains, and the replacement cost of the stove?

I have assessed the documentary evidence both parties provided including photos on their phones. I have also considered the oral evidence they gave. I 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 find that the tenant did not satisfy his statutory responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, not did he leave the back lawn reasonably tidy; the landlord was justified in having it mowed (twice) to reach an acceptable standard. I find proved the claims for cleaning, lawn mowing, rubbish removal, and dump fees.

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for cleaning the driveway. I allow that claim by consent.

I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the replacement cost of a stove (bought second-hand) and its installation cost. No invoices were produced for these claims. They fail for lack of proof.

I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the replacement cost of the bedroom window. There are 2 reasons why. First, the landlord has decided to replace all the front windows at the premises with aluminium windows at a quoted price of $34,336.70. So, the bedroom window would have been replaced anyway.

Second, the bedroom window (a louvre window) would not have been compliant with the Health Homes Standards (HHS) due to draught. The tenant (understandably) put silicone sealer on the panes to stop the draught.

To award the landlord compensation for the replacement of the window would be to reward non-compliance with the HHS. Had the tenant raised HHS compliance in his application, the Tribunal might have awarded exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to comply.

The landlord sought compensation of $3,886.66 based on a quotation for repairs to the bedroom window, and the repair of holes in walls and to rehang a door. He has decided not to accept that quotation because he is replacing all the windows.

The Tribunal can accept quotes in order to assess compensation when the quotes have been accepted and the work is likely to proceed.

I accept that some repairs are required due to the tenant damaging walls, attempting repairs, and failing to repair the walls to a workmanlike standard. I cannot determine from the quote how much of the quote relates to each of the listed repairs. I therefore award the landlord compensation of $500.00 for the wall repairs and for rehanging the door. The evidence is insufficient for the Tribunal to award more. It is guided by its experience in assessing claims for wall damage of this kind.

I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the replacement cost of curtains in the bedroom and the lounge. The landlord said the curtains were missing at the end of the tenancy. Mrs Lee said she folded the curtains and placed them in cupboards when she hung new curtains for the tenant (which they took at the end of the tenancy). Photos produced in evidence showed what appeared to be net curtains left in a cupboard. I cannot determine whether the drapes were left or not given the conflict in the evidence.

Matters like this should be dealt with by the landlord conducting a final inspection with the tenant present. Result

The tenant will pay the landlord $1,457.60. From that amount will be deducted the 1 week’s overpaid rent. The tenant will therefore pay the landlord $1,087.60 from the bond.

The bond will be split between the parties - $1,087.60 to the landlord and $112.40 to the tenant.

The tenant’s application for compensation for not having the use of the stove is dismissed.

The landlord’s claims for the cost of replacing a bedroom window, for replacing the stove, and for supplying and installing curtains are dismissed. Name suppression

Both parties applied for name suppression. I make no orders for name suppression in this case as neither party has wholly or mostly succeed on their applications 2 .

Nor do I order reimbursement of the filing fees. An award to one would be cancelled by an award to the other since each party was succeeded in part.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304259 — net $1,087.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$661.25		Cleaning
Clean driveway (consent	$113.85		Clean driveway (consent
Compensation for repairs to walls	$500.00		Compensation for repairs to walls
Lawn mowing	$100.00		Lawn mowing
Rubbish removal and dump fees	$82.50		Rubbish removal and dump fees
Rent refund		$370.00	Rent refund
Total award	$1,457.60	$370.00
Net award	$1,087.60
Bond	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,087.60