What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5330643 about?

The tribunal order states: Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Picture Perfect Properties Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5330643?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Payments Towards Water During Tenanc…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $341.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5330643?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5330643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12905766-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5330643 about?

The tribunal order states: Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Picture Perfect Properties Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5330643?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Payments Towards Water During Tenanc…: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $341.73 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5330643?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5330643?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12905766-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Kowhai Grove, Kerikeri 0230 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5330643 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5330643 — net $166.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (full tenancy	$341.73		Water rates (full tenancy
Cleaning	$120.00		21. On the evidence available to me I am satisfied that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy in some respects at the end of the tenancy, and I will…
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	31. Mr Crichton’s claim sought refund of the bond, the balance of the credit, and other costs.
Payments towards water during tenancy		$600.00	Payments towards water during tenancy
Total award	$461.73	$628.00
Net award		$166.27
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$166.27

Order

Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Picture Perfect Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $166.27 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6424299-003) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 20 April 2024 and ended on 22 June 2025.
The dispute relates to water rates and cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond and the balance of any credit for water rates payments, compensation for stress and inconvenience, exemplary damages, and costs.
The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 22 December 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms van Engelen represented the landlord. Water rates
Tenants must pay for water that they consume during the tenancy. 1
The tenancy began in April 2024. Mr Crichton paid $10 per week towards water during the tenancy.
In August 2024, Mid North invoiced Mr Crichton $321.44 for water use. Mr Crichton questioned the amount of this invoice. Mid North subsequently confirmed that the invoice was incorrect. There was a subdivision happening around this time, and it seems that the invoice was for the water use of several properties.
When Mid North read the meter in August, they found that it was showing only one more unit than when Mr Crichton moved in. This is clearly some sort of fault / error – Ms van Engelen said that she has experienced this problem before when a meter gets ‘stuck’ - but because only 1m3 was recorded, Mid North only charged Mr Crichton for 1m3 ($3.92).
In March 2025, the Council issued an invoice for water use over the period 15 August 2024 to 21 February 2025. The invoice is for $206.80.
Ms van Engelen read the meter at the end of the tenancy and calculated the water use from 22 February to 22 June. The actual water use was $470.80 but it is not disputed that there was at least one water leak during this period.
Mr Crichton said that there were no material changes in the way that he occupied the premises and used water during the tenancy.
My finding is that the total water use during the tenancy was $341.73, calculated as follows: $3.92 for the period from the beginning of the tenancy to 14 August 2024 $206.80 for the period from 15 August 2024 to 21 February 2025 per the Council invoice 1 Section 39(3) RTA $131.01 for the period from 22 February 2025 to 22 June 2025, based on the average daily use for the period covered by the Council invoice, pro-rated to 121 days Cleaning
The landlord seeks $200 for cleaning.
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 2
Ms van Engelen provided photographs taken at the final inspection, the day after the end of the tenancy.
Mr Crichton objects to the landlord’s claim on the grounds that: a. He left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. b. The landlord did not bring in professional cleaners to assess the standard of cleaning or to carry out any cleaning work. The landlord re-let the premises and gave an arbitrary ‘discount’ to the new tenants.
On the second point, landlords are not required to have professional cleaners “independently” assess the condition of the premises or do the cleaning. The Tribunal may award reasonable compensation to the landlord for cleaning the premises themselves (if it is required) or for new tenants in the property to do cleaning (if it is required).
The critical question is whether the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The photographs provided to me show that the premises were generally clean and tidy, but several specific areas required additional cleaning, in particular a few windows, the shower door, the bathroom floor, and the oven door.
The photographs also show mould on the bathroom ceiling. Tenants have a reasonable obligation to deal with small amounts of surface mould, but the presence of this amount of visible mould is concerning. Mr Crichton said that the mould was historical, that he did his best to clean it, but it always returned. Ms van Engelen said that the premises comply with the healthy homes standards.
On the evidence available to me I am satisfied that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy in some respects at the end of the tenancy, and I will award $120 for cleaning. 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA Compensation, exemplary damages, costs
Mr Crichton sought compensation for stress and inconvenience, and exemplary damages.
Mr Crichton said that Mid North “threatened and intimidated” him into paying for cleaning and issued him with “fake and arbitrary” invoices. He said that Mid North failed to provide him with clear information about the calculation of water rates.
Ms van Engelen said that Mid North were generous and reasonable to Mr Crichton in that: a. They charged only $3.92 for water use for the first four months of the tenancy, per the meter, although Mr Crichton clearly used more water than this. b. They did not engage a professional cleaner, which would have meant paying for mileage and a higher hourly rate. c. They offered Mr Crichton a full refund of his bond.
I think that this was a genuine dispute between landlord and tenant about matters that people can take honestly different views about. There is some merit in the criticism that Mid North could have set out its water rates calculations more clearly, but communication became very difficult at the end of the tenancy and some of Mr Crichton’s language about “threats” and “fake invoices” was inflammatory and unhelpful.
In short, there is no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages against Mid North.
In terms of costs, the Tenancy Tribunal has no power to award costs to either party except in certain circumstances, one of which is if the proceedings are “frivolous or vexatious, or ought not to have been brought”. 3
I acknowledge that this dispute has caused Mr Crichton stress and inconvenience.
However, I think that this was a genuine dispute and both parties reasonably took different views about issues that are ultimately subjective (what does “reasonably clean and tidy” mean?). I do not think that either Mid North or Mr Crichton acted in bad faith.
Therefore I will not award costs to either party. Outcome, filing fee, bond 3 Section 102(2)(a) RTA
Mr Crichton’s claim sought refund of the bond, the balance of the credit, and other costs. I am satisfied that Mr Crichton has been partially successful in this application and I will award him the filing fee of $28.00. 4
The proven water use and cleaning costs are less than the amount of credit that Mr Crichton accrued during the tenancy.
The balance of the credit ($166.27) must be paid to Mr Crichton.
The bond will be released to Mr Crichton.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5330643 — net $166.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (full tenancy	$341.73		Water rates (full tenancy
Cleaning	$120.00		21. On the evidence available to me I am satisfied that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy in some respects at the end of the tenancy, and I will…
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	31. Mr Crichton’s claim sought refund of the bond, the balance of the credit, and other costs.
Payments towards water during tenancy		$600.00	Payments towards water during tenancy
Total award	$461.73	$628.00
Net award		$166.27
Bond		$2,600.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$166.27

Order

Mid North Real Estate Limited (as agent for Picture Perfect Properties Limited must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $166.27 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6424299-003) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 20 April 2024 and ended on 22 June 2025.
The dispute relates to water rates and cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond and the balance of any credit for water rates payments, compensation for stress and inconvenience, exemplary damages, and costs.
The hearing took place in Kaikohe on 22 December 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms van Engelen represented the landlord. Water rates
Tenants must pay for water that they consume during the tenancy. 1
The tenancy began in April 2024. Mr Crichton paid $10 per week towards water during the tenancy.
In August 2024, Mid North invoiced Mr Crichton $321.44 for water use. Mr Crichton questioned the amount of this invoice. Mid North subsequently confirmed that the invoice was incorrect. There was a subdivision happening around this time, and it seems that the invoice was for the water use of several properties.
When Mid North read the meter in August, they found that it was showing only one more unit than when Mr Crichton moved in. This is clearly some sort of fault / error – Ms van Engelen said that she has experienced this problem before when a meter gets ‘stuck’ - but because only 1m3 was recorded, Mid North only charged Mr Crichton for 1m3 ($3.92).
In March 2025, the Council issued an invoice for water use over the period 15 August 2024 to 21 February 2025. The invoice is for $206.80.
Ms van Engelen read the meter at the end of the tenancy and calculated the water use from 22 February to 22 June. The actual water use was $470.80 but it is not disputed that there was at least one water leak during this period.
Mr Crichton said that there were no material changes in the way that he occupied the premises and used water during the tenancy.
My finding is that the total water use during the tenancy was $341.73, calculated as follows: $3.92 for the period from the beginning of the tenancy to 14 August 2024 $206.80 for the period from 15 August 2024 to 21 February 2025 per the Council invoice 1 Section 39(3) RTA $131.01 for the period from 22 February 2025 to 22 June 2025, based on the average daily use for the period covered by the Council invoice, pro-rated to 121 days Cleaning
The landlord seeks $200 for cleaning.
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 2
Ms van Engelen provided photographs taken at the final inspection, the day after the end of the tenancy.
Mr Crichton objects to the landlord’s claim on the grounds that: a. He left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. b. The landlord did not bring in professional cleaners to assess the standard of cleaning or to carry out any cleaning work. The landlord re-let the premises and gave an arbitrary ‘discount’ to the new tenants.
On the second point, landlords are not required to have professional cleaners “independently” assess the condition of the premises or do the cleaning. The Tribunal may award reasonable compensation to the landlord for cleaning the premises themselves (if it is required) or for new tenants in the property to do cleaning (if it is required).
The critical question is whether the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The photographs provided to me show that the premises were generally clean and tidy, but several specific areas required additional cleaning, in particular a few windows, the shower door, the bathroom floor, and the oven door.
The photographs also show mould on the bathroom ceiling. Tenants have a reasonable obligation to deal with small amounts of surface mould, but the presence of this amount of visible mould is concerning. Mr Crichton said that the mould was historical, that he did his best to clean it, but it always returned. Ms van Engelen said that the premises comply with the healthy homes standards.
On the evidence available to me I am satisfied that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy in some respects at the end of the tenancy, and I will award $120 for cleaning. 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA Compensation, exemplary damages, costs
Mr Crichton sought compensation for stress and inconvenience, and exemplary damages.
Mr Crichton said that Mid North “threatened and intimidated” him into paying for cleaning and issued him with “fake and arbitrary” invoices. He said that Mid North failed to provide him with clear information about the calculation of water rates.
Ms van Engelen said that Mid North were generous and reasonable to Mr Crichton in that: a. They charged only $3.92 for water use for the first four months of the tenancy, per the meter, although Mr Crichton clearly used more water than this. b. They did not engage a professional cleaner, which would have meant paying for mileage and a higher hourly rate. c. They offered Mr Crichton a full refund of his bond.
I think that this was a genuine dispute between landlord and tenant about matters that people can take honestly different views about. There is some merit in the criticism that Mid North could have set out its water rates calculations more clearly, but communication became very difficult at the end of the tenancy and some of Mr Crichton’s language about “threats” and “fake invoices” was inflammatory and unhelpful.
In short, there is no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages against Mid North.
In terms of costs, the Tenancy Tribunal has no power to award costs to either party except in certain circumstances, one of which is if the proceedings are “frivolous or vexatious, or ought not to have been brought”. 3
I acknowledge that this dispute has caused Mr Crichton stress and inconvenience.
However, I think that this was a genuine dispute and both parties reasonably took different views about issues that are ultimately subjective (what does “reasonably clean and tidy” mean?). I do not think that either Mid North or Mr Crichton acted in bad faith.
Therefore I will not award costs to either party. Outcome, filing fee, bond 3 Section 102(2)(a) RTA
Mr Crichton’s claim sought refund of the bond, the balance of the credit, and other costs. I am satisfied that Mr Crichton has been partially successful in this application and I will award him the filing fee of $28.00. 4
The proven water use and cleaning costs are less than the amount of credit that Mr Crichton accrued during the tenancy.
The balance of the credit ($166.27) must be paid to Mr Crichton.
The bond will be released to Mr Crichton.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5330643 — Cleanliness at 14 Kowhai Grove, Kerikeri 0230

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5330643 — Cleanliness at 14 Kowhai Grove, Kerikeri 0230

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.