What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5324962 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Rempstone

How much money was awarded in case 5324962?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Drain: $75.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324962?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324962?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12734778-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5324962 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Rempstone

How much money was awarded in case 5324962?

Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Unblock Drain: $75.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324962?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324962?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12734778-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Lewis Crescent, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5324962 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5324962 — net $298.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Unblock drain	$75.00	Unblock drain
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$298.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$298.50

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Rempstone Property Management $298.50 immediately, calculated as shown below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference/ teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal issued an Order dated 22 September 2025 in application 5295579, confirming the arrears owed to the end of the tenancy and awarding the bond to the landlord.
After the tenancy ended the landlord did an exit inspection and gave the tenants a list of the cleaning and repair work it considered necessary to bring the premises to acceptable condition. The property manager agrees that Ms Smith and her father did most of that work satisfactorily but says there are some additional items for which compensation should be paid.
In relation to damage claims, a landlord must prove that the damage happened 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. Carpets
The exit inspection photographs show a fingernail sized area where the carpet is damaged. They show some small stains in 2 of the bedrooms. One photo shows a hair. The landlord claims the cost of repairing the carpet and having all the carpets in the house commercially cleaned
After a 2 year tenancy, I am not persuaded that the carpet damage shown in the exit photos is more than fair wear and tear. Where premises are occupied, some wear will inevitably occur.
I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the stains on the carpet and should compensate the landlord for cost of having those stains removed. The evidence does not prove that all the carpets were left in need of commercial cleaning.
The landlord’s claim is for standard cleaning of all carpets in a 4 bedroom home, including installation and removal of dehumidifier and air moving equipment. The total claim is for $730.50 which in my view is disproportionate to the stains left. The invoice identifies the cost of removing stains in those 2 bedrooms as $80.00 and $90.00 respectively. Those amounts (plus GST) are awarded as compensation. Drains
The evidence satisfies me that the accumulation of hair and other material meant the bath drain needed to be cleared at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims the amount of the plumber’s invoice, $150.00 as compensation.
Where a landlord or tenant breaches their obligations, the other party must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the damage or loss arising from that breach 1 .
If the tenants had been notified of the need for the bath drain to be cleared, I am confident Ms Smith and her father would have done it and avoided the plumber’s bill. Nevertheless the landlord has incurred a cost because of the tenants’ breach and they should make a contribution toward it. Tap aerator
The tenants’ evidence that the plumber the landlord arranged to come to the premises removed the aerator and that it was left with a bag of other items under the sink. I have no reason to disbelieve the tenants’ evidence about that. Plants
There were several plants in the front lawn of the property. The property has no front fence and is open to the street.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the plants were there at the inspection in May 2025 but were not there at the final inspection. It rightly asks what happened to them.
Compensation of $250.00 is claimed for 5 plants @ $50.00 each as shown in the quote provided.
The tenants’ evidence is that they were not there when the plants were removed. They say that their discovery that the plants had gone coincided with becoming aware of other grounds work done at the property, which the tenants assumed had been arranged by the landlord so they did not tell the landlord the plants had gone.
Asked directly, both Mr Moore and Ms Smith tenant’s gave formal evidence that they did not removed the plants and don’t know who did.
Evidence, given on the record about something the party knows directly about, is very persuasive. For the Tribunal not to give weight to that direct evidence there would need to be compelling evidence to the contrary.
Here, where the plants were smallish specimen plants, open to the street and in the context of the other grounds work being carried out, there are other quite plausible explanations for the plants’ disappearance, which are consistent with the tenants’ evidence. 1 S.49 RTA
I do not find it proved that the tenants were responsible for the plants’ removal or that their removal showed carelessness on the tenants’ part.
Because Rempstone Property Management has succeeded some claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5324962 — net $298.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Unblock drain	$75.00	Unblock drain
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$298.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$298.50

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Rempstone Property Management $298.50 immediately, calculated as shown below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference/ teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal issued an Order dated 22 September 2025 in application 5295579, confirming the arrears owed to the end of the tenancy and awarding the bond to the landlord.
After the tenancy ended the landlord did an exit inspection and gave the tenants a list of the cleaning and repair work it considered necessary to bring the premises to acceptable condition. The property manager agrees that Ms Smith and her father did most of that work satisfactorily but says there are some additional items for which compensation should be paid.
In relation to damage claims, a landlord must prove that the damage happened 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. Carpets
The exit inspection photographs show a fingernail sized area where the carpet is damaged. They show some small stains in 2 of the bedrooms. One photo shows a hair. The landlord claims the cost of repairing the carpet and having all the carpets in the house commercially cleaned
After a 2 year tenancy, I am not persuaded that the carpet damage shown in the exit photos is more than fair wear and tear. Where premises are occupied, some wear will inevitably occur.
I am satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the stains on the carpet and should compensate the landlord for cost of having those stains removed. The evidence does not prove that all the carpets were left in need of commercial cleaning.
The landlord’s claim is for standard cleaning of all carpets in a 4 bedroom home, including installation and removal of dehumidifier and air moving equipment. The total claim is for $730.50 which in my view is disproportionate to the stains left. The invoice identifies the cost of removing stains in those 2 bedrooms as $80.00 and $90.00 respectively. Those amounts (plus GST) are awarded as compensation. Drains
The evidence satisfies me that the accumulation of hair and other material meant the bath drain needed to be cleared at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims the amount of the plumber’s invoice, $150.00 as compensation.
Where a landlord or tenant breaches their obligations, the other party must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the damage or loss arising from that breach 1 .
If the tenants had been notified of the need for the bath drain to be cleared, I am confident Ms Smith and her father would have done it and avoided the plumber’s bill. Nevertheless the landlord has incurred a cost because of the tenants’ breach and they should make a contribution toward it. Tap aerator
The tenants’ evidence that the plumber the landlord arranged to come to the premises removed the aerator and that it was left with a bag of other items under the sink. I have no reason to disbelieve the tenants’ evidence about that. Plants
There were several plants in the front lawn of the property. The property has no front fence and is open to the street.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the plants were there at the inspection in May 2025 but were not there at the final inspection. It rightly asks what happened to them.
Compensation of $250.00 is claimed for 5 plants @ $50.00 each as shown in the quote provided.
The tenants’ evidence is that they were not there when the plants were removed. They say that their discovery that the plants had gone coincided with becoming aware of other grounds work done at the property, which the tenants assumed had been arranged by the landlord so they did not tell the landlord the plants had gone.
Asked directly, both Mr Moore and Ms Smith tenant’s gave formal evidence that they did not removed the plants and don’t know who did.
Evidence, given on the record about something the party knows directly about, is very persuasive. For the Tribunal not to give weight to that direct evidence there would need to be compelling evidence to the contrary.
Here, where the plants were smallish specimen plants, open to the street and in the context of the other grounds work being carried out, there are other quite plausible explanations for the plants’ disappearance, which are consistent with the tenants’ evidence. 1 S.49 RTA
I do not find it proved that the tenants were responsible for the plants’ removal or that their removal showed carelessness on the tenants’ part.
Because Rempstone Property Management has succeeded some claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324962 — Cleanliness at 19 Lewis Crescent, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324962 — Cleanliness at 19 Lewis Crescent, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

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