What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310365 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Rentals.Co.Nz Limited (as agent for Paul & Victoria

How much money was awarded in case 5310365?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Failure to maintain: mould in kitche…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $385.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $683.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,598.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $707.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $724.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310365?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310365?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12963694-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310365 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Rentals.Co.Nz Limited (as agent for Paul & Victoria

How much money was awarded in case 5310365?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Failure to maintain: mould in kitche…: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $385.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $683.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,598.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $707.14 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $724.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310365?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310365?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12963694-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

60 Denby Crescent, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310365 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310365 — net $2,801.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$707.14		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$724.50		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$300.00		the claim for $300 for cleaning is fair and reasonable. Lawns
Lawns and Garden work	$385.00		Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$683.10		Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$1,598.50		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Failure to maintain: mould in kitchen		$250.00	Failure to maintain: mould in kitchen
Exemplary damages: Harassment		$300.00	Harassment
Total award	$4,426.24	$550.00
Net award	$2,801.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,801.24

The tenancy began in July 2017. Rentals.co.nz was not the property manager at the start of the tenancy. The tenancy ended on 27 June 2025.

The landlord’s application seeks rent arrears, rubbish removal, change of locks, cleaning, and repair costs. The landlord’s application was heard on 29 October 2025 in Whangarei.

Ms Baker filed a cross-application on 24 October. The tenant’s application was heard on 3 December 2025. Ms Inglis represented the landlord. Rent arrears

Ms Baker accepted this part of the landlord’s claim. Rubbish removal

The claim seeks $952.00 for rubbish removal, representing $496.00 for the hire of a 9m3 skip bin and $456.00 for labour and dumping charges for items that could not be put in the skip bin (tyres, oil, LPG gas bottle).

Ms Baker disputed the claim in part, on the grounds that: a. Not all of the rubbish left at the premises after she vacated belonged to her. The owners moved to Australia at the start of her tenancy, and they left some of their belongings at the property, particularly in the sheds. b. The invoice for rubbish removal does not provide a breakdown of the number of hours or the hourly rate.

Ms Inglis provided a copy of the property inspection report from the beginning of the tenancy which states that the garden shed is “all clean and tidy”.

Ms Baker is liable for the reasonable cost of disposing of any rubbish that she left at the end of her tenancy, but not for the cost of disposing of any items that are not hers.

At the hearing Ms Baker gave detailed oral evidence in response to the landlord’s photographs of the rubbish that was left behind, stating what was hers and what was not. That evidence was clear and detailed enough to satisfy me that what was disposed of at the end of the tenancy included some items that did not belong to Ms Baker.

It is not possible to precisely quantify the proportion of rubbish that falls into this category. In general terms, the evidence available to me shows that most of the rubbish belonged to Ms Baker.

In terms of the labour charge for rubbish removal, although the invoice does not include a breakdown of the number of hours and hourly rate, I am satisfied that the total amount charged ($360 plus GST) is a reasonable amount for the labour involved in loading up a large skip bin and then transporting the additional items to the dump.

My finding is that Ms Baker is liable for 75% of the skip bin and labour costs, and all of the additional dumping costs (all of those items belonged to Ms Baker).

The total is $724.50 including GST. Cleaning

The tenancy ended on Friday 27 June, pursuant to a 42-day notice issued by the landlord.

Ms Baker had been in the property for 8 years. She was having difficulty exiting the property and completing the cleaning in this tight timeframe. She contacted the owner of Rentals.co.nz and asked if she could return on Saturday 28 June to do further cleaning.

Ms Baker did some more cleaning in the morning of 28 June, but she said that she was hampered in her efforts by the actions of the owners.

Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.

The incident on 28 June was unfortunate and, as discussed below, I agree that the owner’s behaviour amounted to an unreasonable interference with Ms Baker’s peace and privacy.

However, this does not remove or lessen Ms Baker’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.

Ms Inglis’ photographs show that parts of the property did not meet that standard, and the claim for $300 for cleaning is fair and reasonable. Lawns

Ms Baker had arranged for her lawnmowing contractor to mow the lawns the week after she vacated.

This mow did not happen, possibly because of bad weather.

Rentals.co.nz then arranged for their own contractor to mow the lawns and spray weeds.

Ms Baker said that she wasn’t aware that the mow that she had organised did not go ahead, and that Rentals.co.nz should have contacted her before sending in their own contractor.

The tenancy ended in mid-winter which can make lawnmowing difficult.

However, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy (inside and out) crystalises at the end of the tenancy. Landlords may allow tenants to return to the property after the end of the tenancy to carry out cleaning or gardening, but they are not obliged to. Ms Inglis’ photographs show that the lawns were overgrown. The landlord was entitled to have their own contractor do the work.

The invoice is for $385.00. Ms Baker acknowledged that she would have paid for lawnmowing if her contractor had done the job as planned. She said that her contractor quoted $40-$50 less than the landlord’s invoice, but I was not provided with a copy of her contractor’s quote. The cost of $385 is reasonable for the work required to bring the lawns and gardens to a reasonably tidy condition. Fleas

The claim seeks $48 for the purchase of ‘flea bombs’.

Ms Inglis said that Ms Baker had dogs at the property and the landlords wanted to ensure that there were no fleas present, because the fleas could multiply exponentially if the property was shut up for a period of time at the end of the tenancy.

The landlords were entitled to do this, but I do not agree that the tenant is liable to pay for this cost.

The action was precautionary and there is no evidence that fleas were present at the end of Ms Baker’s tenancy.

This part of the claim is dismissed. Change of locks

Ms Baker was provided with numerous keys (12 in total) and two garage door remotes at the start of the tenancy.

Ms Baker said that the front door lock stopped working during her tenancy.

She recalled that she gave Odette Inglis the front door key on Saturday 28 June. Ms Inglis, who gave evidence at the second hearing, disputed this.

Ms Baker said that the garage door stopped working. She said that most of the keys remained in a drawer during her tenancy.

Rentals.co.nz gave Ms Baker the option of returning the keys to a ‘drop box’ after the end of the tenancy but Ms Baker did not do this.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return to the landlord all keys and similar security devices. 1 Ms Baker failed to do this.

The landlord was entitled to change the locks.

The cost of changing the locks was $683.10 per an invoice from guardian Mobile Locksmiths.

The claim is proven. Repairs

The claim seeks the cost of: a. Repairing a door jamb and replacing the door; and b. Repairing rat damage in the lounge.

The damage to the door and door jamb is proven.

The landlord seeks to hold Ms Baker liable for the rat damage in the lounge on the grounds that Ms Baker made one complaint about rats but did not say anything more, and they were not aware that there was a problem with rats at the property. Ms Baker said that she raised the issue frequently during inspections but was ‘brushed off’ by the (then) property manager.

Ms Baker did not cause or contribute to the rat damage in the lounge. The cost of repair of this damage falls to the landlord. Ms Baker is liable for the damage to the door and doorframe. It appears that the damage was caused by a flatmate / boarder. Tenants are liable for damage that is caused by any person who is at the premises with their consent. 2

The invoice from PB Builders helpfully separates out the cost of the different jobs. The cost of the door jamb repair and door replacement was $1,598.50. Tenant application

The tenant’s application raises issues relating to maintenance, healthy homes, and interference with peace comfort and privacy. “No rent reduction given when the bathroom was renovated” 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 41 RTA

The bathroom was renovated some time during Ms Baker’s tenancy but neither Ms Baker nor Ms Inglis could clarify when this happened. It was certainly before Rentals.co.nz took over management of the tenancy.

Ms Baker said that she did not have the use of the bathroom during the renovations. The landlord provided a portaloo. No rent reduction was given at the time.

I agree that it is appropriate for the landlord to reduce the rent if they are undertaking substantial repair work that impacts on the use of the premises by the tenant.

However, the time to negotiate the rent reduction, and the time to raise a dispute if the rent reduction is not agreed, is or at the time, that the work happens not (at least) five years later.

At this point there is simply not enough information about the extent and duration of the loss amenity to make an assessment of reasonable compensation.

Ms Baker said that the owner also promised to have a professional cleaner in after the renovation was completed, but this never happened.

There is nothing in writing about this alleged promise, and again the time to raise this was shortly after the completion of the renovations, not many years later.

This part of the claim is dismissed. Trees

Ms Baker said that there were problem trees at the property – a large privet, and a plum tree that was damaged in a storm. Ms Baker said that the privet generates a lot of pollen that contributes to allergies / hayfever, and that the landlord took a long time to remove the plum tree after it was damaged.

Ms Inglis provided evidence of tree work carried out in 2022 and 2024.

There is very little evidence about this issue (and other maintenance issues). Ms Baker said that she raised the issues verbally during inspections but did not send text messages or emails.

Ms Inglis said that their practice is to note down any issues that tenants raise verbally during inspections and there is no record of complaints / concerns about the plum tree and privet.

Ms Baker has the burden of proof.

There is not enough evidence to establish that Ms Baker raised a complaint about trees that was not addressed within an acceptable timeframe.

There is no proven breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation. This part of the claim is dismissed. Kitchen mould / tiles

There is some mould in a kitchen cupboard and some of the tiles on the kitchen wall detached due to dampness / mould.

Ms Baker said that this problem has been present for years. The owners came to the property approximately three years ago to measure up for a new kitchen, but nothing happened. Ms Baker noted that the owners carried out work on the deck, which was (from her perspective) unnecessary, but did nothing about the moisture ingress and mould in the kitchen.

Ms Inglis said that they became aware of this issue in 2025, but were not aware of it before then.

There is no evidence that the landlords were aware of this problem before early 2025.

The photographs provided to me show that the cupboard was quite badly discoloured with mould, and the fact that the tiles have come off the wall is indicative of a concerning problem with moisture ingress.

It is appropriate for landlords to treat dampness / mould as high priority maintenance issues.

No action was taken about this issue after the landlord became aware of it in early 2025.

My finding is that this did amount to a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligation.

The failure to repair did not have an impact on the tenant’s use of the premises, but the mouldy cupboard and detached tiles were unsightly and caused Ms Baker some concern about the watertightness of the property.

I will award compensation of $250.00. Oven

Some time during the tenancy the landlord replaced the existing stove with a new Westinghouse stove.

Ms Baker said that she had problems with the Westinghouse stove.

Ms Baker said that she raised the problems verbally with the property manager during inspections over the course of approximately a year.

Ms Baker said that it was only after more serious problems occurred – an element turned itself on and the grill stopped working – that the landlord took action.

Ms Inglis said that there is no record of Ms Baker raising any issues or concerns about the stove before December 2024. When Ms Baker raised the issue, they investigated it promptly, and the stove was replaced in December.

There is no evidence show that Ms Baker informed the landlord about problems with the stove before December 2024.

Therefore, there is no proven breach of the maintenance obligation. Hole in wall under laundry sink

Some plumbing work was carried out in this area during the tenancy. The date that this work was done is unclear. It was before Rentals.co.nz’s involvement.

The work left an unrepaired hole in the wall, where a pipe used to be.

Ms Baker said that the hole in the wall was an issue because she experienced problems with rats during the tenancy.

Again, Ms Baker said that she repeatedly mentioned this issue during inspections, but Ms Inglis said that there is no record of it being raised.

Ms Baker has the burden of proof.

It is not proven that this issue was brought to the landlord’s attention during the tenancy. Breach of quiet enjoyment

Ms Baker raised two issues under this heading: a. An incident with the owner on 28 June 2025. b. On-going issues with Ashley Inglis. 28 June 2025

As noted above, Rentals.co.nz gave permission for Ms Baker to come to the property on 28 June, the day after the tenancy terminated, to carry out extra cleaning. The agreement was that Ms Baker could stay until 11.30am.

Ms Baker said that the owners were at the property that morning and they seemed surprised and unhappy that she was there.

She said that Mr Mathers confronted her, swore at her, and told her that she was trespassing and that he would call the police.

Ms Baker gave detailed oral evidence about this incident at the hearing.

Rentals.co.nz was not present at this time. Odette Inglis gave evidence that she came to the property around 11.30am. The owners were sitting in their car at that time. They appeared to be upset. She went inside and spoke to Ms Baker, who told her what had happened.

I do not know whether Rentals.co.nz told the owners that they had agreed to allow Ms Baker to clean on the morning of 28 June. If there was a communication breakdown, it is understandable why the owners (who were moving back into the property) were surprised and annoyed by the fact that the house was not vacant and ready to move into.

However, that does not excuse or justify the way that Ms Baker was spoken to.

My finding is that this amounted to an unreasonable interference with Ms Baker’s peace, comfort, and privacy.

A breach of this duty, in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $3,000 can apply. In considering an appropriate award of damages I have had regard to the following factors: a. The aspect of Mr Mathers’ behaviour that justifies an award of damages is the way that he swore at Ms Baker and confronted her in an aggressive manner. His comment that Ms Baker was trespassing and his threat to call the police could be seen as reasonable comments if Mr Mathers was not aware that Rentals.co.nz had given Ms Baker permission to be there. b. The incident is properly described as harassment – the intent was to pressure Ms Baker into leaving - but there is no pattern of ongoing harassment. This was a one-off incident that happened “in the heat of the moment”. c. The incident was distressing for Ms Baker.

I will award exemplary damages of $300.00. Ashley Inglis

Ms Baker said that Ms Inglis was rude and difficult to deal with. She said that she had a good relationship with the other property managers that she had during the tenancy.

Ms Inglis said that she also found Ms Baker to be rude and difficult.

Ms Baker could not identify any specific incident where Ms Inglis behaved inappropriately or used inappropriate language. Her complaint was more general, to do with her perception of Ms Inglis’ attitude towards her.

The Tribunal must take an objective approach. The question is whether there are any proven occasions of behaviour that amount to an unreasonable interference with the tenant’s peace, comfort, and privacy.

There are none in this instance. This seems to be an example of a clash of personalities, which is unfortunate, but is not in the same category as a breach of a legal duty.

Therefore, there is no basis for an award of compensation under this heading. Bond, filing fee, name suppression

The landlord was substantially successful in their application and I will award the landlord the filing fee.

The bond will be released to the landlord.

Ms Baker sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on application to any party that “has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings”. 3 The Tribunal also has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”. 4

In this instance: a. Ms Baker was not wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings. b. There are no special circumstances, such as safety concerns, that justify the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression.

Therefore, name suppression is not granted.

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310365 — net $2,801.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$707.14		Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$724.50		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$300.00		the claim for $300 for cleaning is fair and reasonable. Lawns
Lawns and Garden work	$385.00		Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$683.10		Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$1,598.50		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Failure to maintain: mould in kitchen		$250.00	Failure to maintain: mould in kitchen
Exemplary damages: Harassment		$300.00	Harassment
Total award	$4,426.24	$550.00
Net award	$2,801.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,801.24