What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5326682 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5326682?

Cleaning: $780.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $177.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,269.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326682?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326682?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12819857-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5326682 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 5326682?

Cleaning: $780.74 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $177.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,269.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326682?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326682?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12819857-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Verner Place, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5326682 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

11 Verner Place, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5326682 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5326682 — net $3,227.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$780.74	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,269.05	Rubbish removal
Repairs: patch and paint damaged gib board	$177.60	Repairs: patch and paint damaged gib board
Net award	$3,227.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,227.39

Claims and awards for application 5326682 — net $3,227.39 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $780.74
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $2,269.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Repairs: patch and paint damaged gib board

Amount: $177.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: patch and paint damaged gib board

Net award

Landlord $3,227.39

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $3,227.39

Dismissed claims

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

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,227.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Perese, Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join her to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord seeks rent arrears of $170.00 to the 24 April 2025 and provided an up-to-date rent summary.
The tenancy commenced on 19 July 2021 and was periodic.
On 16 April 2025, the Tribunal heard an application, filed by the landlord, for termination of the tenancy for abandonment and rent arrears. 1
At that hearing the Tribunal found the premises had been abandoned and the rent was in arrears. The tenancy was terminated with the landlord granted immediate possession of the property. 2
In considering the issue of rent arrears the Tribunal found the tenant was liable to pay rent for 28 days from 18 February 2025, the date the landlord became 1 Kainga Ora-Homes and Communiites v Terri Deidre Edwards [2025] NXTT 5189853. 2 Ibid at para [5] aware, or ought to have been aware, the tenancy was abandoned, to 18 March 2025. Rent arrears of $1,770.55 was awarded. 3 See section 61(3)(a)(i) of the Act.
On that basis the landlord is not entitled to rent arrears to 24 April 2025 and the claim is dismissed.

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) of the Act.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $780.74 after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which prove the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish and with no signs of damage.
The landlord provided an end of tenancy inspection report with photographs which show the property was not returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Tribunal notes the following: a. The property had been abandoned. b. The walls, light switches, skirting board, and windowsills were dusty, marked, and soiled and had not been wiped clean. c. The floors were soiled and marked and had not been vacuumed or mopped. d. The kitchen had not been cleaned; the cupboards and draws had not been emptied and wiped clean; the oven, rangehood and cook top had not been cleaned and was greasy, and the kitchen bench and sink were covered in the tenant’s belongings and had not been cleaned. e. The bathroom sink, shower over the bath, and vanity had not been wiped clean. The bathroom mirror was dirty and the shelving unit behind it had not been wiped clean. f. The toilet had not been cleaned and the rubbish bin emptied.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in immaculate condition – only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine 3 Ibid at para [6] and [7]. what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean. 4
The Tribunal has been able to make a proper before and after comparison of the cleanliness of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. After hearing from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy condition, and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish?

The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $2,269.05 after paying a contractor to remove 13 cubic meters of rubbish from the interior and exterior of the property following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord notes that the property was abandoned with the tenant leaving behind multiple items including but not limited to: a. Furniture – lounge suite, beds, desks, draws, gaming chair, mirror. b. Children’s items – clothing, toys, baby bouncer. c. Kitchen items – cutlery and crockery, cook wear and food. d. Other items – clothing, bedding and linen, cleaning products, medicine. e. General rubbish. f. Multiple shopping trolleys. g. The council provided rubbish and recycling bins were full.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having hearing from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant did not remove all rubbish and personal belongings from the property at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks $177.66 after paying a contractor to patch repair and paint holes in the gib and plaster in the bedrooms one, two and three and an invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
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 4 Bevan Realty Limited – As Agent for Xian Jian Chew v Kristian Pilgrim [2025] NZTT 5153354 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 of the Act.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a)of the Act.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a)of the Act.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the Act.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The Tribunal notes that the pre-tenancy inspection photos show the property was provided in good condition with no defects. The end of tenant inspection photographs shows the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A round hole in the wall in bedroom one. b. A round home in the wall and a large oval shaped home in the wall by the curtain in bedroom two. c. A large indentation in a wall and a large L shaped crack in the plaster of a wall in bedroom three.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. After hearing from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the damaged was caused by the tenant during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
In making the order the Tribunal have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Other matters
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek costs.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5326682 — net $3,227.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$780.74	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$2,269.05	Rubbish removal
Repairs: patch and paint damaged gib board	$177.60	Repairs: patch and paint damaged gib board
Net award	$3,227.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,227.39

Claims and awards for application 5326682 — net $3,227.39 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $780.74
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal

Amount: $2,269.05
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Repairs: patch and paint damaged gib board

Amount: $177.60
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: patch and paint damaged gib board

Net award

Landlord $3,227.39

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $3,227.39

Dismissed claims

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

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal Rent arrears

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,227.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Perese, Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join her to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord seeks rent arrears of $170.00 to the 24 April 2025 and provided an up-to-date rent summary.
The tenancy commenced on 19 July 2021 and was periodic.
On 16 April 2025, the Tribunal heard an application, filed by the landlord, for termination of the tenancy for abandonment and rent arrears. 1
At that hearing the Tribunal found the premises had been abandoned and the rent was in arrears. The tenancy was terminated with the landlord granted immediate possession of the property. 2
In considering the issue of rent arrears the Tribunal found the tenant was liable to pay rent for 28 days from 18 February 2025, the date the landlord became 1 Kainga Ora-Homes and Communiites v Terri Deidre Edwards [2025] NXTT 5189853. 2 Ibid at para [5] aware, or ought to have been aware, the tenancy was abandoned, to 18 March 2025. Rent arrears of $1,770.55 was awarded. 3 See section 61(3)(a)(i) of the Act.
On that basis the landlord is not entitled to rent arrears to 24 April 2025 and the claim is dismissed.

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) of the Act.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord seeks compensation of $780.74 after paying a contractor to clean the property to a reasonably clean and tidy standard following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the landlord provided pre-tenancy inspection photographs which prove the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish and with no signs of damage.
The landlord provided an end of tenancy inspection report with photographs which show the property was not returned to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Tribunal notes the following: a. The property had been abandoned. b. The walls, light switches, skirting board, and windowsills were dusty, marked, and soiled and had not been wiped clean. c. The floors were soiled and marked and had not been vacuumed or mopped. d. The kitchen had not been cleaned; the cupboards and draws had not been emptied and wiped clean; the oven, rangehood and cook top had not been cleaned and was greasy, and the kitchen bench and sink were covered in the tenant’s belongings and had not been cleaned. e. The bathroom sink, shower over the bath, and vanity had not been wiped clean. The bathroom mirror was dirty and the shelving unit behind it had not been wiped clean. f. The toilet had not been cleaned and the rubbish bin emptied.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in immaculate condition – only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine 3 Ibid at para [6] and [7]. what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean. 4
The Tribunal has been able to make a proper before and after comparison of the cleanliness of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. After hearing from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy condition, and the amount claimed is ordered.

Did the tenant remove all rubbish?

The landlord seeks rubbish removal costs totalling $2,269.05 after paying a contractor to remove 13 cubic meters of rubbish from the interior and exterior of the property following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord notes that the property was abandoned with the tenant leaving behind multiple items including but not limited to: a. Furniture – lounge suite, beds, desks, draws, gaming chair, mirror. b. Children’s items – clothing, toys, baby bouncer. c. Kitchen items – cutlery and crockery, cook wear and food. d. Other items – clothing, bedding and linen, cleaning products, medicine. e. General rubbish. f. Multiple shopping trolleys. g. The council provided rubbish and recycling bins were full.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having hearing from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the tenant did not remove all rubbish and personal belongings from the property at the end of the tenancy and the amount claimed is ordered

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks $177.66 after paying a contractor to patch repair and paint holes in the gib and plaster in the bedrooms one, two and three and an invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
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 4 Bevan Realty Limited – As Agent for Xian Jian Chew v Kristian Pilgrim [2025] NZTT 5153354 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 of the Act.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a)of the Act.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a)of the Act.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the Act.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The Tribunal notes that the pre-tenancy inspection photos show the property was provided in good condition with no defects. The end of tenant inspection photographs shows the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A round hole in the wall in bedroom one. b. A round home in the wall and a large oval shaped home in the wall by the curtain in bedroom two. c. A large indentation in a wall and a large L shaped crack in the plaster of a wall in bedroom three.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. After hearing from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the damaged was caused by the tenant during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
In making the order the Tribunal have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Other matters
Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek costs.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326682 — Cleanliness at 11 Verner Place, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326682 — Cleanliness at 11 Verner Place, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenant remove all rubbish?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.