What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310699 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Golden Links Property

How much money was awarded in case 5310699?

Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310699?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12777791-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310699 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Golden Links Property

How much money was awarded in case 5310699?

Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310699?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310699?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12777791-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Rana Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310699 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310699 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Golden Links Property Management Limited As The Agent For Ormiston Project Limited $100.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for cleaning, damage to the paintwork and damage to the cooktop are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended todays in person hearing. Ms Ko and Ms Lao attended for the landlord.
The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and damaged the property by marking the lounge wall, removing plants and scratching the ceramic cooktop. The landlord seeks: a. Cleaning - $460 inclusive of GST b. Painting the living room - $500 plus GST c. Replacement plants and planting $300 plus GST. d. Replacement cooktop $855.00 plus GST e. The filing fee of $28,00
The tenants dispute all claims, they say: a. They left the property reasonably clean and tidy. b. That the plants died of natural causes and they should not be charged for them. c. That they did not do anything to the lounge wall which caused marking or damage to the paint work. d. That the scratches to the cooktop were normal wear and tear from using the cooktop.
Both parties provided me with evidence including photographs of the property Cleaning
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, See section 40(1)(e)(ii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 , not commercially clean 2 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 3 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4
What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. They provided photographs taken at the final inspection of 30 June 2025; the tenants accept that the landlord asked them to do further cleaning at the property after that inspection. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
The tenants says that they did further cleaning of the areas that the landlord pointed out that needed additional cleaning, such as the deck and walls. The tenants provided photographs and a video that they took on the 5 July 2025 after they had completed further cleaning.
The tenants say that the photographs the landlord has provided to the Tribunal are of the condition of the property as at 30 June, not after they had completed further cleaning. They say that they sent their video showing the condition of the property after cleaning to the landlord on the 5 July.
The tenants confirmed that they had the carpet cleaned before the 30 June and showed communication with the carpet cleaner that they had who they found on Facebook marketplace.
The landlord says that even after the tenants did additional cleaning, the property was still not to a reasonable standard and needed additional cleaning including carpet cleaning. The produced an invoice from their cleaners which describes the cleaning simply as ‘cleaning’ for $460.00.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the tenants undertook further cleaning as requested after the 30 June and that they left the property reasonably clean and tidy because the video taken on the 5 July is comprehensive and shows the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is not proven and therefore dismissed. Removal of the plants
The tenancy agreement provides at clause 21 that the tenants are responsible for the lawns and garden maintenance and are not to remove any plants or shrubs from the garden.
The garden is small, there is a retained area at the back and another barked area where the 5 plants were planted at the beginning of the tenancy along the wall. The plants in the ingoing inspection, look to be 5 hebe plants or something similar.
The landlord says that the tenant removed the plants in order to put a mat down to utilise the barked space. The landlords say that they manage many other properties in the area and there was no concern about plants dying over that time.
The tenants say that the plants died of natural causes and that they put a mat over the barked area only after the plants had died. They say that the issue of the plants was never raised with them during routine inspections in January 2025 or in April 2025 after they put down the mat.
I consider that it is more than likely that the tenants removed the plants, I say that because the plants were healthy in the October 2024 inspection but are gone by the January 2025 inspection and replaced with matting. I do not consider it likely that all of the plants would have died suddenly and note that there was no evidence that the tenants ever told the landlord that the plants had all died suddenly.
The landlord sought $300 plus GST for these five plants. They provided one quote and confirmed that the work had not yet been done.
Hebe plants are not expensive. I consider the amount requested by the landlord to be unreasonable. I also have reservations about whether the landlord will in fact replace the plants. I therefore award the sum of $100 for the plants. Damage to the paintwork in the lounge and damage to the cooktop.
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.
The landlord produced a quote for these items. It said that it had not yet undertaken the work, because it did not have the funds to do so. The house has been re-tenanted at a similar rental. Painting in the Lounge
The tenants says that the paintwork issues were not caused by them and were preexisting . They say that the photographs in the ingoing report are taken at a different angle and distance to those at the end, and therefore it is difficult to make a direct comparison.
I have looked at the photographs provided by the landlord at the end of the tenancy, it appears that you can see the timber framing underneath. This is not tenant damage; it appears to be a paint defect. The tenants are not liable for this damage. Ceramic Cooktop
The landlord says that the ceramic cooktop is heavily scratched and is in far worse condition than what you would expect for its age. It is seeking the cost of replacement. The landlord confirmed that the cooktop is functional and that it has not been replaced as per the quote.
The tenant says that the scratches are from using ordinary pots on the cooktop, they say that after using the proper ceramic cooktop cleaner, that the top looked much better and they provided photographs that they took of the cooktop after 1 July. Those photographs show some scratch marks on the top, but I do not consider that this has been caused by careless or intentional damage, it appears to be more from wear as the scratching is in a circular pattern which is consistent from being from using pots on the cooktop. I note that the scratches to the cooktop were never noted in the inspection reports in October 2024, January 2025 or April 2025.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the paintwork in the living room and the cooktop are not proven and therefore dismissed.
As the landlord has only been successful in ¼ of its claims then I do not award the landlord the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5310699 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00	Lawns and Garden work
Net award	$100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Golden Links Property Management Limited As The Agent For Ormiston Project Limited $100.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for cleaning, damage to the paintwork and damage to the cooktop are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended todays in person hearing. Ms Ko and Ms Lao attended for the landlord.
The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and damaged the property by marking the lounge wall, removing plants and scratching the ceramic cooktop. The landlord seeks: a. Cleaning - $460 inclusive of GST b. Painting the living room - $500 plus GST c. Replacement plants and planting $300 plus GST. d. Replacement cooktop $855.00 plus GST e. The filing fee of $28,00
The tenants dispute all claims, they say: a. They left the property reasonably clean and tidy. b. That the plants died of natural causes and they should not be charged for them. c. That they did not do anything to the lounge wall which caused marking or damage to the paint work. d. That the scratches to the cooktop were normal wear and tear from using the cooktop.
Both parties provided me with evidence including photographs of the property Cleaning
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, See section 40(1)(e)(ii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 , not commercially clean 2 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 3 Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 4
What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. They provided photographs taken at the final inspection of 30 June 2025; the tenants accept that the landlord asked them to do further cleaning at the property after that inspection. 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 3 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. 4 Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
The tenants says that they did further cleaning of the areas that the landlord pointed out that needed additional cleaning, such as the deck and walls. The tenants provided photographs and a video that they took on the 5 July 2025 after they had completed further cleaning.
The tenants say that the photographs the landlord has provided to the Tribunal are of the condition of the property as at 30 June, not after they had completed further cleaning. They say that they sent their video showing the condition of the property after cleaning to the landlord on the 5 July.
The tenants confirmed that they had the carpet cleaned before the 30 June and showed communication with the carpet cleaner that they had who they found on Facebook marketplace.
The landlord says that even after the tenants did additional cleaning, the property was still not to a reasonable standard and needed additional cleaning including carpet cleaning. The produced an invoice from their cleaners which describes the cleaning simply as ‘cleaning’ for $460.00.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the tenants undertook further cleaning as requested after the 30 June and that they left the property reasonably clean and tidy because the video taken on the 5 July is comprehensive and shows the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is not proven and therefore dismissed. Removal of the plants
The tenancy agreement provides at clause 21 that the tenants are responsible for the lawns and garden maintenance and are not to remove any plants or shrubs from the garden.
The garden is small, there is a retained area at the back and another barked area where the 5 plants were planted at the beginning of the tenancy along the wall. The plants in the ingoing inspection, look to be 5 hebe plants or something similar.
The landlord says that the tenant removed the plants in order to put a mat down to utilise the barked space. The landlords say that they manage many other properties in the area and there was no concern about plants dying over that time.
The tenants say that the plants died of natural causes and that they put a mat over the barked area only after the plants had died. They say that the issue of the plants was never raised with them during routine inspections in January 2025 or in April 2025 after they put down the mat.
I consider that it is more than likely that the tenants removed the plants, I say that because the plants were healthy in the October 2024 inspection but are gone by the January 2025 inspection and replaced with matting. I do not consider it likely that all of the plants would have died suddenly and note that there was no evidence that the tenants ever told the landlord that the plants had all died suddenly.
The landlord sought $300 plus GST for these five plants. They provided one quote and confirmed that the work had not yet been done.
Hebe plants are not expensive. I consider the amount requested by the landlord to be unreasonable. I also have reservations about whether the landlord will in fact replace the plants. I therefore award the sum of $100 for the plants. Damage to the paintwork in the lounge and damage to the cooktop.
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.
The landlord produced a quote for these items. It said that it had not yet undertaken the work, because it did not have the funds to do so. The house has been re-tenanted at a similar rental. Painting in the Lounge
The tenants says that the paintwork issues were not caused by them and were preexisting . They say that the photographs in the ingoing report are taken at a different angle and distance to those at the end, and therefore it is difficult to make a direct comparison.
I have looked at the photographs provided by the landlord at the end of the tenancy, it appears that you can see the timber framing underneath. This is not tenant damage; it appears to be a paint defect. The tenants are not liable for this damage. Ceramic Cooktop
The landlord says that the ceramic cooktop is heavily scratched and is in far worse condition than what you would expect for its age. It is seeking the cost of replacement. The landlord confirmed that the cooktop is functional and that it has not been replaced as per the quote.
The tenant says that the scratches are from using ordinary pots on the cooktop, they say that after using the proper ceramic cooktop cleaner, that the top looked much better and they provided photographs that they took of the cooktop after 1 July. Those photographs show some scratch marks on the top, but I do not consider that this has been caused by careless or intentional damage, it appears to be more from wear as the scratching is in a circular pattern which is consistent from being from using pots on the cooktop. I note that the scratches to the cooktop were never noted in the inspection reports in October 2024, January 2025 or April 2025.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the paintwork in the living room and the cooktop are not proven and therefore dismissed.
As the landlord has only been successful in ¼ of its claims then I do not award the landlord the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310699 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Rana Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310699 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Rana Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions