What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345182 about?

The tribunal order states: Rose Matilda Young and Matt William Brooks to pay Monique Wijnen and Hans

How much money was awarded in case 5345182?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $420.95 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $159.53 awarded to landlord; LPG: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $321.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels - Swiss Ball, Laund…: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $146.79 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345182?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345182?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12821562-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345182 about?

The tribunal order states: Rose Matilda Young and Matt William Brooks to pay Monique Wijnen and Hans

How much money was awarded in case 5345182?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $420.95 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $159.53 awarded to landlord; LPG: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $321.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels - Swiss Ball, Laund…: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $146.79 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345182?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345182?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12821562-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Saddleback Road, Todds Valley, RD 1, Nelson 7071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5345182 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5345182 — net $1,856.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$321.44	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$280.00	Carpet Cleaning
Electricity	$420.95	Electricity
LPG	$50.00	LPG
Water rates	$146.79	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement - Landlord	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement - Landlord
Cleaning: 2 hours	$60.00	Cleaning: 2 hours
Lawns and Garden work: Labour - 4 hours	$120.00	Lawns and Garden work: Labour - 4 hours
Lawns and Garden work: Tree replacement	$159.53	Lawns and Garden work: Tree replacement
Repairs: Spot repair on wall paint removed by fixture, ceiling dent, and windowsill - 3 hours	$120.00	Repairs: Spot repair on wall paint removed by fixture, ceiling dent, and windowsill - 3 hours
Replace chattels - Swiss ball, laundry basket, bean bag, one duvet	$150.00	Replace chattels - Swiss ball, laundry basket, bean bag, one duvet
Net award	$1,856.71
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,856.71

Order

Rose Matilda Young and Matt William Brooks to pay Monique Wijnen and Hans Weirs $1,856.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5762227-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Monique Wijnen and Hans Weirs: $1,856.71 Rose Matilda Young and Matt William Brooks: $1,143.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants sought the return of their bond, less a sum of $1,498.71 they believe already previously agreed with the landlord to cover end of tenancy costs.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

The tenancy ended on 8 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy are as agreed by the tenants. These are awarded.
The landlord also sought LPG and electricity costs. The tenants had filled the two LPG cylinders shortly before the tenancy ended. The parties mutually agreed that $50.00 was reasonable compensation for any subsequent LPG usage. The final electricity cost of $420.95 was not disputed by the tenants and both amounts are awarded.

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 statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord claimed the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. A claim for $280.00 for carpet cleaning was accepted by the tenants and this is awarded.
The landlord cleaned the premises and sought $400.00 (based on six hours at $50 per hour). The tenants had left the premises, overall, in reasonable condition, but having reviewed the exit photos collectively during the hearing they accepted some areas had been missed and further cleaning was required. These were minor and I have allowed two hours at $30 per hour, being $60.00. The other areas were cleaned beyond requirements, especially in areas where the landlords’ items on display in shelves were removed and dusted.
The tenants had pet dogs, allowed under the tenancy agreement (as had been permitted in previous tenancies here). There were some minor repairs required due to the dogs. The indoor repairs are addressed below. The landlord sought labour and plant replacement costs. The tenants accepted that seven scrubs needed replacement at an invoiced cost of $159.53 (legacy of a digging dog) but disputed the extent of labour claimed for that and some other outside tasks. They had not accurately accounted for the time and effort in removal and replacement (including travel to acquire the replacement shrubs) and I consider four hours (not six as claimed) reflects the reasonable effort and costs evidence and I award $120.00 towards that effort.
The following chattels were missing or damaged at the end of the tenancy: a. Swiss ball (missing), b. laundry basket (missing), c. bean bag (burn hole and patched), and d. one duvet (swapped for lesser).
The landlord produced a longer list of missing items from a very detailed chattel list drafted some 3.5 years earlier when the premises were first let. There was no evidence of chattel reconciliation between previous tenancies or prior to this one. The chattels deemed missing in this order were evident in entry photos and are therefore considered present at commencement.
The landlord provided some quotes for replacement but the economic life expectancy of some chattels missing is less than the 3.5 years of the rented premises with the chattels in place.
The guiding principle in such a case is restitution in integrum (a Latin term meaning “restitution to the original position”)– to place the applicant in the same position that it would have been in if the damage had not occurred. Thus, the appropriate measure of compensation for negligent damage is the difference in value immediately before and immediately after the damaging act.
However, in practicality, this principle is oversimplified, as it is often nearly impossible to place a party in the exact same position for a variety of reasons and a court’s task becomes to attempt to do so as closely as possible through damages. To prevent overcompensation or a windfall to the applicant, the concept of betterment has developed in the jurisprudence, which essentially limits an applicant’s award on account of being placed in a better position than prior to the loss.
Having considered the evidence and submissions I have awarded $150.00 as compensation to the landlord for the missing or damaged chattels.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
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) RTA.
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) RTA. 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) RTA.
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) RTA.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. One small wall patch – this was caused by the removal of a fixture (decal) b. Oen ceiling patch – a small dent in the ceiling was noted. The tenants accepted the damage was more than fair tear, noting it was likely caused via the launching of a “projectile” by one of their children. c. Windowsill patch/repaint – a low windowsill showed signs of dog nail tracks. The tenants stated a couch was placed in front and they were not sure of how the dogs may have caused the damage. They also raised the history of pet dogs in prior tenancies.
The landlord carried out the repairs and was able to use retained paint from the last painting to match. They sought compensation of six hours at $75.00 per hour. I foreshadowed problems in the claim with both the time and rate as claimed; given the depreciation considerations, and disproportionality in using what was akin to a commercial trade hourly rate for a DIY task. Balancing the considerations, I award $120.00 for the minor repairs as carried out.
I 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.
Despite carpet cleaning and attempts at stain removal, two rooms (lounge and main bedroom) had legacy stains. The landlord did not relet the premises. It was marketed for sale. All going as expected the property will have been sold last week.
The carpet in-situ remains as at the end of the tenancy. It was some eleven years old. While there are insurance claims pending (on-hold), the quote for the bedroom carpet replacement is less than the excess (while $1,800.00 excess per event was claimed, I have adopted the $1,300.00 as stated in the tenancy agreement). The lounge carpet replacement quote was just over double the $1,800.00 excess.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
There are two challenges for the landlord here.
The landlord has now sold the house without incurring any loss in carpet replacement. There was no evidence of the carpet condition being subject to any sale price discount, nor any liability for replacement cost or contribution.
The landlord produced an email to their listing agent that committed them to a “pass through” to the new owner of any monetary order here for carpet replacement, if so awarded. This was a genuine offer but there is no legal obligation to do so, nor on the new owner to actually incur such a cost, if they received any proceeds.
The two stains are obvious but not offensive. Given the age of the carpet if depreciated (at eight years economic life for the lounge and twelve years for the bedroom), and the lack of any subsequent real loss to the landlord, I dismiss the two insurance claims. Filing fee
Because Monique Wijnen, Hans Weirs have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they have not been substantially successful, suppression is not ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5345182 — net $1,856.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$321.44	Rent arrears
Carpet Cleaning	$280.00	Carpet Cleaning
Electricity	$420.95	Electricity
LPG	$50.00	LPG
Water rates	$146.79	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement - Landlord	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement - Landlord
Cleaning: 2 hours	$60.00	Cleaning: 2 hours
Lawns and Garden work: Labour - 4 hours	$120.00	Lawns and Garden work: Labour - 4 hours
Lawns and Garden work: Tree replacement	$159.53	Lawns and Garden work: Tree replacement
Repairs: Spot repair on wall paint removed by fixture, ceiling dent, and windowsill - 3 hours	$120.00	Repairs: Spot repair on wall paint removed by fixture, ceiling dent, and windowsill - 3 hours
Replace chattels - Swiss ball, laundry basket, bean bag, one duvet	$150.00	Replace chattels - Swiss ball, laundry basket, bean bag, one duvet
Net award	$1,856.71
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,856.71

Order

Rose Matilda Young and Matt William Brooks to pay Monique Wijnen and Hans Weirs $1,856.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5762227-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Monique Wijnen and Hans Weirs: $1,856.71 Rose Matilda Young and Matt William Brooks: $1,143.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants sought the return of their bond, less a sum of $1,498.71 they believe already previously agreed with the landlord to cover end of tenancy costs.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

The tenancy ended on 8 September 2025. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy are as agreed by the tenants. These are awarded.
The landlord also sought LPG and electricity costs. The tenants had filled the two LPG cylinders shortly before the tenancy ended. The parties mutually agreed that $50.00 was reasonable compensation for any subsequent LPG usage. The final electricity cost of $420.95 was not disputed by the tenants and both amounts are awarded.

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 statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The landlord claimed the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. A claim for $280.00 for carpet cleaning was accepted by the tenants and this is awarded.
The landlord cleaned the premises and sought $400.00 (based on six hours at $50 per hour). The tenants had left the premises, overall, in reasonable condition, but having reviewed the exit photos collectively during the hearing they accepted some areas had been missed and further cleaning was required. These were minor and I have allowed two hours at $30 per hour, being $60.00. The other areas were cleaned beyond requirements, especially in areas where the landlords’ items on display in shelves were removed and dusted.
The tenants had pet dogs, allowed under the tenancy agreement (as had been permitted in previous tenancies here). There were some minor repairs required due to the dogs. The indoor repairs are addressed below. The landlord sought labour and plant replacement costs. The tenants accepted that seven scrubs needed replacement at an invoiced cost of $159.53 (legacy of a digging dog) but disputed the extent of labour claimed for that and some other outside tasks. They had not accurately accounted for the time and effort in removal and replacement (including travel to acquire the replacement shrubs) and I consider four hours (not six as claimed) reflects the reasonable effort and costs evidence and I award $120.00 towards that effort.
The following chattels were missing or damaged at the end of the tenancy: a. Swiss ball (missing), b. laundry basket (missing), c. bean bag (burn hole and patched), and d. one duvet (swapped for lesser).
The landlord produced a longer list of missing items from a very detailed chattel list drafted some 3.5 years earlier when the premises were first let. There was no evidence of chattel reconciliation between previous tenancies or prior to this one. The chattels deemed missing in this order were evident in entry photos and are therefore considered present at commencement.
The landlord provided some quotes for replacement but the economic life expectancy of some chattels missing is less than the 3.5 years of the rented premises with the chattels in place.
The guiding principle in such a case is restitution in integrum (a Latin term meaning “restitution to the original position”)– to place the applicant in the same position that it would have been in if the damage had not occurred. Thus, the appropriate measure of compensation for negligent damage is the difference in value immediately before and immediately after the damaging act.
However, in practicality, this principle is oversimplified, as it is often nearly impossible to place a party in the exact same position for a variety of reasons and a court’s task becomes to attempt to do so as closely as possible through damages. To prevent overcompensation or a windfall to the applicant, the concept of betterment has developed in the jurisprudence, which essentially limits an applicant’s award on account of being placed in a better position than prior to the loss.
Having considered the evidence and submissions I have awarded $150.00 as compensation to the landlord for the missing or damaged chattels.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
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) RTA.
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) RTA. 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) RTA.
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) RTA.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. One small wall patch – this was caused by the removal of a fixture (decal) b. Oen ceiling patch – a small dent in the ceiling was noted. The tenants accepted the damage was more than fair tear, noting it was likely caused via the launching of a “projectile” by one of their children. c. Windowsill patch/repaint – a low windowsill showed signs of dog nail tracks. The tenants stated a couch was placed in front and they were not sure of how the dogs may have caused the damage. They also raised the history of pet dogs in prior tenancies.
The landlord carried out the repairs and was able to use retained paint from the last painting to match. They sought compensation of six hours at $75.00 per hour. I foreshadowed problems in the claim with both the time and rate as claimed; given the depreciation considerations, and disproportionality in using what was akin to a commercial trade hourly rate for a DIY task. Balancing the considerations, I award $120.00 for the minor repairs as carried out.
I 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.
Despite carpet cleaning and attempts at stain removal, two rooms (lounge and main bedroom) had legacy stains. The landlord did not relet the premises. It was marketed for sale. All going as expected the property will have been sold last week.
The carpet in-situ remains as at the end of the tenancy. It was some eleven years old. While there are insurance claims pending (on-hold), the quote for the bedroom carpet replacement is less than the excess (while $1,800.00 excess per event was claimed, I have adopted the $1,300.00 as stated in the tenancy agreement). The lounge carpet replacement quote was just over double the $1,800.00 excess.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
There are two challenges for the landlord here.
The landlord has now sold the house without incurring any loss in carpet replacement. There was no evidence of the carpet condition being subject to any sale price discount, nor any liability for replacement cost or contribution.
The landlord produced an email to their listing agent that committed them to a “pass through” to the new owner of any monetary order here for carpet replacement, if so awarded. This was a genuine offer but there is no legal obligation to do so, nor on the new owner to actually incur such a cost, if they received any proceeds.
The two stains are obvious but not offensive. Given the age of the carpet if depreciated (at eight years economic life for the lounge and twelve years for the bedroom), and the lack of any subsequent real loss to the landlord, I dismiss the two insurance claims. Filing fee
Because Monique Wijnen, Hans Weirs have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants requested suppression in their application. As they have not been substantially successful, suppression is not ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345182 — Cleanliness at 8 Saddleback Road, Todds Valley, RD 1, Nelson 7071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345182 — Cleanliness at 8 Saddleback Road, Todds Valley, RD 1, Nelson 7071

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and outgoings?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions