What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331659 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Opes Property Management South

How much money was awarded in case 5331659?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Hob: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Rubbish: $624.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331659?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12847292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331659 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Opes Property Management South

How much money was awarded in case 5331659?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Hob: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Rubbish: $624.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331659?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12847292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 677 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331659 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331659 — net $1,002.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Walls and rubbish	$624.80		Repairs: Walls and rubbish
Repairs: Hob	$550.00		Repairs: Hob
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Delay to repairs		$500.00	Delay to repairs
Total award	$1,502.80	$500.00
Net award	$1,002.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,002.80

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation and declarations for landlord breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The Tenant provided evidence after the hearing because it had not been received by the Adjudicator at the time of the hearing. The Landlord was given an opportunity to respond to this evidence.

All evidence has been considered in this decision although only the most relevant evidence is discussed here for brevity.

The Applicant bears the onus of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Cleaning

At the end of the tenancy, the Tenant was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, leave all provided chattels, and replace standard light bulbs and worn- out smoke alarm batteries, in accordance with ss 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) and 40(1)(ca) RTA.

The Landlord claimed $300.00 for cleaning costs, asserting that the showers and basins were dirty, there was residue on the toilet seat, cooking residue remained on the oven and hobs, and marks were left on the walls. The claim also included emptying and cleaning the wheelie bins. An exit inspection report and cleaning invoices were provided in support of the claim. The report reflected the parts of the house the Landlord claimed required cleaning.

The Tenant disputed the claim, asserting that he left the property in an immaculate condition after two full days of cleaning. He submitted that any dirty glass or marks were a result of fair wear and tear, and that the Landlord unfairly marked all items as dirty on the inspection report before later deciding the amounts to deduct. He also argued that the photographs were zoomed in, exaggerating the condition of the premises. The Tenant acknowledged some black marks on the walls but stated he had used a magic eraser to remove them, leaving white residue. He explained that he had left his vacuum cleaner in the cupboard to allow cleaning immediately prior to vacating and left the bins full in anticipation of the next rubbish collection. He also considered the Landlord’s inspections overly critical and felt under pressure during these visits. He provided statements from his flatmates confirming that the property was left in a clean and tidy condition.

In considering the evidence, some cleaning remained outstanding as reflected in the exit inspection reports and professional cleaners were reasonably required to attend the premises. The exit inspection report reflects standard property inspection criteria, and the matters raised were not hyper-critical or unusually pedantic. The invoice indicated approximately $100.00 for cleaning, with the remaining $200.00 relating to the removal of the Tenant’s belongings. Given the property was brand new, the level of cleaning required was reasonable. This amount is reflected in the exit inspection report photographs and the Landlord submitted it would have been much more had it been a full bond exit clean. The Tenant was also obliged to remove rubbish from the wheelie bins prior to vacating rather than waiting for rubbish collection day which fell after the tenancy ended.

The amounts ordered are proved. Damages

The Landlord claimed compensation for dents in the walls, damage to the exterior light, and a cracked hob. The property was brand new at the start of the tenancy and remained under warranty. The Landlord submitted that the developer assessed the hob damage as resulting from tenant negligence rather than any fault with the oven or its components. Photographs of the smashed hob and oven door were provided to the manufacturer, Fisher & Paykel, who similarly did not classify the damage as accidental or indicative of a manufacturing defect. As a result, the damage was not covered under warranty. The Landlord also noted that no issues with the oven or door mechanism had been reported during the tenancy. An exit inspection report and a tradesperson’s invoice for the wall and exterior-light repairs were produced in support of the claim.

The Tenant disputed liability for all of the damage. He submitted that the marks on the walls were minor and that any dents could have occurred while moving furniture. He stated that he had not received documentation confirming what repairs were actually completed. Concerning the hob, the Tenant initially said that someone had placed a hot pan on it and “it blew up,” but on further questioning he stated the pan had been dropped after the oven door unexpectedly detached.

In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant is liable for the cracked hob. The oven was brand new, and no issues with the oven door were reported at any time before the damage occurred. The independent assessment by the developer also attributed the damage to tenant negligence. I am satisfied, based on the exit inspection photographs and the tradesperson’s invoice, that the dents in the walls and the damaged exterior light occurred during the tenancy. These items were in new condition at the commencement of the tenancy, and the Landlord’s evidence establishes on the balance of probabilities that the damage was more than fair wear and tear.

The amounts ordered are proved. Tenants claims Failure to lodge an application to the Tribunal promptly

The Tenant alleged the Landlord failed to apply to the Tribunal promptly to resolve the bond dispute. The Tenant relies upon section 22 and 40 of the RTA. The tenancy ended on 29 July 2025 and the Landlord filed their application on 22 August 2025. The Tenant referred to email correspondence from the Landlord listing deductions to the bond with no supporting evidence, multiple email requests for receipts, contractor invoices and cleaning photos. The Tenant also referred to the property inspection reports showing the Landlord claimed nearly everything was dirty.

Section 22 refers to agreed applications to the Chief Executive for payment of the bond and section 40 refers to the Tenants obligations. There is no reference to requirements that applications for the bond need to be filed “promptly” in these sections.

In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant has failed to prove that the Landlord was required to file an application promptly and if this was a requirement, the Landlord filed an application to the Tribunal within three weeks which was not an unreasonable time frame.

The claim is dismissed. Failure to act in good faith

The Tenant alleged that the Landlord failed to act in good faith relying on section 38 (1) of RTA. The Tenant referred to the Landlord cancelling mediation, dismissive and delayed communications, and denying him opportunities to resolve matters amicably. The Tenant referred to email correspondence showing the Landlord unilaterally cancelled mediation, an email from Shane Campbell dismissing the Tenants concerns and the time spent preparing for mediation.

The Landlord explained that mediation was cancelled due to a public holiday, and some delays were caused by the developer’s slow responses. Because the house was brand new and under a one year warranty for any damages, they had to contact the developer for repairs. The developer sometimes failed to act in a timely manner which then delayed the Landlord from conducting the repairs. A lawyer was subsequently engaged by the Landlord following a threatening comment from the Tenant so communication had to be through their Lawyer at one stage.

Section 38 refers to the Tenants quiet enjoyment of the property. It states: (1)The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. There is no reference to good faith in this section.

In considering the evidence, whilst there is no reference to good faith in the legislation that the Tenant has relied upon, there is an obligation for landlords and tenants to act in good faith. In this case, I find the Tenant has not established a breach of good faith because mediation was cancelled due to a public holiday and the Landlord has provided reasonable explanations as to why repairs were sometimes delayed or how they communicated with the Tenant. The Tenant also did not provide evidence of their correspondence with Shane Campbell so it was difficult to assess whether the Landlord was being evasive and not engaging constructively.

The claim is dismissed. Failure to keep proper records

The Tenant claimed the Landlord failed to keep proper records in accordance with section 123 RTA. They submitted a Privacy Act request on 25 August 2025 seeking all tenancy-related records and they disclosed on 9 October 2025, outside of the 20 working day timeframe. He stated the documents were incomplete, the missing inspection reports, gaps in maintenance records and no complaint tracking logs.

Section 123 RTA refers to the general functions and power of the chief executive.

In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant has not established a breach of this section of the Act. Even if the Tenant intended to rely on s 123A RTA, which requires a Landlord to retain specified tenancy documents during the tenancy and for 12 months after it ends, the Tenant did not provide the Landlord’s full set of records for the Tribunal to meaningfully assess compliance. Section 123A imposes an obligation owed to the Chief Executive, not to the Tenant directly, and the Tenant has not demonstrated the expertise or evidentiary basis required to audit the Landlord’s file and conclude that records were missing or deficient. Without clear, reliable evidence of non-compliance, the claim cannot succeed.

The claim is dismissed. Unreasonable conduct and harassment

The Tenant claimed the Landlords conduct was unreasonable, and harassment based on section 38(2) and 38(3) RTA. They claimed $1500.00. They referred to the exit inspection report where everything was marked as unclean or damaged, a noise complaint made against the Tenant without evidence, false accusations of damaging the garage door, property inspections focussing on trivial issues and dismissive communications where the tenant felt pressured and misnamed. When the Tenant raised an issue with the maintenance, the Landlord responded by asking if they wanted to extend their tenancy. The Tenant found this threatening. They also blamed the Tenant for damaging the garage door which was incorrect.

The Landlord denied this. They acknowledge they made a mistake about the noise complaint and removed the complaint from the Tenants record. They apologised and the issue was resolved within 24 hours. They focussed on standard issues in conducting the property inspections and they were not dismissive or pressuring towards the Tenant. They also had no intention of being threatening when they asked the Tenant about extending the tenancy. That was taken out of context and at that time, Landlords were unable to end tenancies so threatening them would have been futile.

Section 38 states: (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. (3) Contravention of subsection (2) in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an unlawful act (3A) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the landlord commits an unlawful act under that subsection if the landlord enters the premises purportedly under section 48(2B) without any reasonable cause to believe that the tenant has abandoned the premises.

In considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Landlord acted unreasonably or in a manner amounting to harassment. As noted earlier, the exit inspection report reflected standard practice and did not demonstrate conduct that could objectively be characterised as nitpicking. The Landlord also acknowledged that the handling of the noise-complaint incident could have been better, and they apologised promptly. This was a single, isolated event that was remedied without delay, and it does not establish a course of conduct capable of breaching the Tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. I do not accept that the Landlord’s enquiry regarding a potential tenancy renewal was threatening; rather, it formed part of their routine management obligations at the relevant time. Further, the Tenant did not provide sufficient, consistent examples of dismissive or hostile communication to establish a sustained pattern of behaviour that would meet the threshold for harassment under the RTA.

The claim is dismissed. Failure to properly address the Tenants complaint

The Tenant stated that the Landlord failed to properly address his complaint and relied on section 40(1)( e) RTA. The Tenant submitted email correspondence from September 2025 which, in his view, showed that although the Landlord acknowledged his complaint, it was not properly addressed. He noted that the Head of risk and compliance referred to a meeting regarding the matter but never confirmed whether it occurred, and that the Property Manager repeatedly misnamed him and provided no formal written response. The Tenant explained that his complaint related to the cleaning and repairs, the manner in which the exit inspection was conducted, and the overall complaint-handling process.

The Landlord submitted that the complaint had not been ignored. Rather, it had been escalated to another team, meaning the Property Manager was no longer in a position to engage directly with the Tenant.

Section 40(1)(e) RTA outlines the Tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy; it does not impose any requirement on a Landlord to follow a particular process for responding to formal complaints after a tenancy has ended.

Having considered the evidence, I find that the way in which the Landlord addressed the complaint after the tenancy ended is not a matter the Tribunal is able to determine. The Tenant has also not identified any legislative provision that sets out a specific post-tenancy complaint-handling obligation for Landlords. The provision referred to is not correct.

The claim is dismissed. Failure to carry out repairs in a timely manner

The Tenant claimed delays in essential repairs, including a three-month delay in fixing the oven and a twelve-month delay in repairing the upstairs tap.

The Landlord explained that delays were due to warranty processes involving the developer. They also found the developer was slow to respond which caused delays for them. The Landlord submitted they did not know about the garage door and when they were notified they repaired it within days.

Section 45 (1)(b) RTA provides that a landlord shall provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.

In considering the evidence, an oven is essential for day-to-day living, and a three-month delay was unreasonable. The loose tap should have been repaired sooner. The Tenant is entitled to compensation for inconvenience, and a global sum of $500.00 is awarded.

As the Landlord has been substantially successful with the claims, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331659 — net $1,002.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Walls and rubbish	$624.80		Repairs: Walls and rubbish
Repairs: Hob	$550.00		Repairs: Hob
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: Delay to repairs		$500.00	Delay to repairs
Total award	$1,502.80	$500.00
Net award	$1,002.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,002.80

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond, compensation and declarations for landlord breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The Tenant provided evidence after the hearing because it had not been received by the Adjudicator at the time of the hearing. The Landlord was given an opportunity to respond to this evidence.

All evidence has been considered in this decision although only the most relevant evidence is discussed here for brevity.

The Applicant bears the onus of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Cleaning

The amounts ordered are proved. Damages

The amounts ordered are proved. Tenants claims Failure to lodge an application to the Tribunal promptly

The claim is dismissed. Failure to act in good faith

The claim is dismissed. Failure to keep proper records

Section 123 RTA refers to the general functions and power of the chief executive.

The claim is dismissed. Unreasonable conduct and harassment

The claim is dismissed. Failure to properly address the Tenants complaint

The claim is dismissed. Failure to carry out repairs in a timely manner

The Tenant claimed delays in essential repairs, including a three-month delay in fixing the oven and a twelve-month delay in repairing the upstairs tap.

As the Landlord has been substantially successful with the claims, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331659 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 677 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331659 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 677 Worcester Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

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

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.