What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316919 about?

The tribunal order states: Daniel Rogers, Edie Thomas and Cameron Rickard to pay Online Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 5316919?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316919?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316919?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12576869-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316919 about?

The tribunal order states: Daniel Rogers, Edie Thomas and Cameron Rickard to pay Online Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 5316919?

Cleaning: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316919?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316919?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12576869-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43C Fifth Avenue, Enderley, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316919 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316919 — net $80.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Net award	$80.00
Bond	$289.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$80.00

Daniel Rogers, Edie Thomas and Cameron Rickard to pay Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Kade And Jessie Larsen And Robertson $80.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $289.63 (3323442-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Kade And Jessie Larsen And Robertson: $80.00 Daniel Rogers, Edie Thomas and Cameron Rickard: $209.63

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for cleaning and rubbish removal costs, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has sought exemplary damages and damages against the landlord.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant did not leave the kitchen reasonably clean and tidy, but duly remove all rubbish that they were responsible for removing.

In the landlord’s 21 July 2025 email sent after the final inspection, the landlord indicated a list of items requiring attention after having thanked the tenant “for leaving the majority of the property in a clean and tidy condition — it is appreciated.”

While tenants are generally not entitled to return to the premises after the tenancy had already ended to undertake further cleaning, the tenant did undertake further cleaning on 22 August on most of the items on the landlord’s list contained in the 21 July 2025. The tenant admits that they have not attended to the kitchen before the landlord’s cleaners called at the property.

For that reason, I consider that the tenant is only liable to pay the landlord’s professional cleaner’s costs for the kitchen which the tenant had not attended to by 23 July 2025.

The costs awarded to the landlord takes into account the standard of the cleanliness that tenants are required to leave behind, which is to a reasonably clean and tidy condition only, rather than a professional standard. I also took into account ordinary call-out charges for cleaners to just attend to one area, ie., the kitchen, under the circumstances.

I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the rubbish underneath the house did not belong to them. The landlord also did not alert the tenant in their 21 July communication to clear the rubbish underneath the house.

Only the amount ordered of $80.00 for cleaning is proved.

I now address the tenant’s complaint of incorrect advice being given by the landlord’s property manager. Is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages for the landlord having misled them or having given incorrect information on their right to end the tenancy by notice?

The tenant say that the landlord owe the tenant a duty of full and frank disclosure of relevant tenancy laws and procedure.

The tenant say that had they known that notice given by one tenant in a joint tenancy situation would have been sufficient to end the periodic tenancy, they would have given notice much earlier rather than attempt to find a replacement tenant for one or two of them.

For those reasons, the tenant seek exemplary damages and rent rebate against the landlord.

However, I find that no such duty of care is owed by the landlord to the tenant.

There is a moral duty and duty under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (‘FTA’) not to mislead or engage in misleading conduct.

While the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the FTA per se, I do not consider that the landlord has acted in a misleading manner or given inaccurate information to the tenant.

The tenant’s email of 8 April 2025 to the landlord’s property manager asks: I’d like to know what the process for leaving my tenancy at 43C Fifth Avenue is please.

How much notice do I give?

I will be finding a replacement for my room so I won’t need to pay a fee. Thank you, Daniel

In response, the landlord states by return email on 9 April that: I understand that you would like to make a variation to your tenancy agreement by removing your name and adding a new tenant in your place. Please note that any replacement tenant is subject to our approval, and they must be approved before moving in. There is a $150 fee for the change of tenant process. This covers our time spent checking references and preparing the necessary documentation. Here’s how the process works: Once you have found a potential replacement tenant, they will need to complete a tenancy application. I will send you a link for submitting the application once you confirm top process. I will manage the screening process, including reference checks. If the applicant is approved, I will prepare a Variation to Tenancy Agreement for all named tenants (including the incoming tenant) to sign. Once all signatures are completed, we can officially remove your name from the tenancy agreement. Please ensure that the other two tenants agree with the proposed change before we begin the process, as their approval is also required. Let me know if you have any questions.

I do not find that the landlord has given any inaccurate or misleading information to the tenant’s question which is predicated on Daniel finding a replacement tenant for his room “so I won’t need to pay a fee.”

Property managers engaged by the landlord do not have a duty to give all encompassing advice to cover every situation to enable tenants to make an informed decision on what option is most favourable to their individual needs.

A property manager is an agent of the principal, ie., the landlord. Any fiduciary duty is owed by the agent to the landlord directly rather that to the tenant.

I consider that the property manager has duly answered the tenant’s question and correctly so.

It would be a stretch for the tenant to suggest that the landlord should have better looked after their interest by also giving them the express option to end the entire periodic tenancy.

With the principle of joint tenancies, notice by one tenant would end the periodic tenancy for all the tenants which requires all the tenants to vacate on expiry of the notice given by the tenant/tenants.

At the time Daniel sent his email on 8 April, it was their contemplation and plan that the other two tenants or Cameron will be staying. Hence, it was in order for the landlord to respond with the process on how Daniel’s name may be taken out from the existing tenancy by way of variation to the tenancy agreement rather than for the entire periodic tenancy needing to end.

I do not consider it necessary for the landlord’s property manager to also suggest the option for Daniel to give notice to end the entire periodic tenancy altogether! Such financial or strategic consideration are for the tenants to decide for themselves.

In addition, the landlord’s property manager says that in phone conversations with the tenant, she has indicated that ending the entire tenancy remains a option for the tenants to consider if they wish. The tenant however denies ever being told this at all until much later after they have checked with Tenancy Services themselves. However, I do not need to make a finding on this point one way or the other as the success of the tenant’s claim does not hinge on this phone conversation.

For the above reasons, the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages and breach of duty of full disclosure in the fiduciary sense must fail.

There is no contractual duty and no duty of care owed by the landlord to the tenant to advise the tenant that periodic tenancies of joint tenants may be ended by notice given by one tenant.

Only the amounts set out in the table above are proved.

The remaining bond of $289.63 will be disbursed accordingly as set out above.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316919 — net $80.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$80.00	Cleaning
Net award	$80.00
Bond	$289.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$80.00

Daniel Rogers, Edie Thomas and Cameron Rickard to pay Online Rentals Limited As Agent For Kade And Jessie Larsen And Robertson $80.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for cleaning and rubbish removal costs, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has sought exemplary damages and damages against the landlord.

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

The tenant did not leave the kitchen reasonably clean and tidy, but duly remove all rubbish that they were responsible for removing.

For that reason, I consider that the tenant is only liable to pay the landlord’s professional cleaner’s costs for the kitchen which the tenant had not attended to by 23 July 2025.

Only the amount ordered of $80.00 for cleaning is proved.

The tenant say that the landlord owe the tenant a duty of full and frank disclosure of relevant tenancy laws and procedure.

For those reasons, the tenant seek exemplary damages and rent rebate against the landlord.

However, I find that no such duty of care is owed by the landlord to the tenant.

There is a moral duty and duty under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (‘FTA’) not to mislead or engage in misleading conduct.

While the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the FTA per se, I do not consider that the landlord has acted in a misleading manner or given inaccurate information to the tenant.

The tenant’s email of 8 April 2025 to the landlord’s property manager asks: I’d like to know what the process for leaving my tenancy at 43C Fifth Avenue is please.

How much notice do I give?

I will be finding a replacement for my room so I won’t need to pay a fee. Thank you, Daniel

A property manager is an agent of the principal, ie., the landlord. Any fiduciary duty is owed by the agent to the landlord directly rather that to the tenant.

I consider that the property manager has duly answered the tenant’s question and correctly so.

It would be a stretch for the tenant to suggest that the landlord should have better looked after their interest by also giving them the express option to end the entire periodic tenancy.

For the above reasons, the tenant’s claim for exemplary damages and breach of duty of full disclosure in the fiduciary sense must fail.

There is no contractual duty and no duty of care owed by the landlord to the tenant to advise the tenant that periodic tenancies of joint tenants may be ended by notice given by one tenant.

Only the amounts set out in the table above are proved.

The remaining bond of $289.63 will be disbursed accordingly as set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316919 — Cleanliness at 43C Fifth Avenue, Enderley, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316919 — Cleanliness at 43C Fifth Avenue, Enderley, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

How much notice do I give?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

How much notice do I give?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions