What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349421 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5349421?

Cleaning: $309.99 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349421?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13047009-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349421 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5349421?

Cleaning: $309.99 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349421?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13047009-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 903, 8 Wigan Street, Te Aro, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5349421 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5349421 — net $337.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$309.99	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$337.99
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$337.99

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Amber Giselle Haley at Unit/Flat Apartment 903, 8 Wigan Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 is reduced and the tenancy ended on 24 August 2025.
Amber Giselle Haley to pay [The landlord/s] $337.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $337.99 Amber Giselle Haley: $1,622.01

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by Ms Fell- Smith.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy which was due to end on 4 November 2025. Both parties want the bond returned to them. The landlord took over the management of the tenancy from the owner on 6 June 2025.

Did the owner agree the tenant could move out on 30 June 2025?

The tenant submitted that the owner agreed the fixed term tenancy could end on 30 June 2025 and the tenant only paid rent after that date under duress. The tenant said the landlord should be estopped from claiming rent after 30 June.
The Tribunal may make any orders that the High Court or District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts This includes equitable remedies such as estoppel. See s 78(1)(h) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
A party claiming an equitable estoppel must establish that: a. A belief or expectation has been created or encouraged through some action, representation, or omission to act by the other party; b. The belief or expectation has been reasonably relied on to their detriment; c. It would be unconscionable for the party against whom the estoppel is alleged to depart from the belief or expectation.
The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable.
Both parties referred me to an email dated 4 June 2025 where the owner replied to the tenant’s request to leave the tenancy on 30 June. The tenant said this and the attached notice to end the fixed term tenancy on 30 June was the representation she relied on to her detriment. The landlord said that email also explained that rent would have to be paid until a new tenant was found. The landlord said the 30 June date in the notice was a mistake.
I can see from the emails that the landlord emailed on 6 June explaining they were the new landlord and that the tenant would have to pay rent until a new tenant was found. They agreed to waive any fees and reasonable costs for the early end of the fixed term tenancy. The tenant did not move out on 30 June.
It is unclear exactly when the tenant moved out. In an email dated 3 September the tenant said she cleaned and vacated the apartment on 29 August 2025. In an email dated 26 September she said:
Because the tenant did not leave on 30 June, and because she continued to pay rent, it seems most likely to me the tenant knew she would have to pay rent until a new tenant was found. I am not persuaded I should find the landlord is estopped from the claim for rent arrears after 30 June.

Should I reduce the fixed term?

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA.
The tenant submitted that the unforeseen change in circumstances is that she had to return to Germany to look after her daughter and take part in custody proceedings. No supporting evidence was submitted on this point but the reason was not challenged by the landlord. This was the same reason given to the owner, who accepted the reason and started the process of ending the fixed term tenancy. The tenant’s verbal evidence at hearing was persuasive. It seems most likely to me there was an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances.
The tenant provided financial information from IRD showing that her total income while she was in tenancy was just over $15,000. She was in receipt of a benefit from MSD. The landlord said the tenant provided information to the owner that showed she had savings outside of New Zealand. The tenant said this was the German equivalent of a KiwiSaver and was not money she could access. I was not provided with any financial information for the landlord. I note the owner is not well.
It seems most likely to me that the tenant will suffer severe hardship if she has to pay $4,900 in rent arrears, which is what the landlord is claiming. While the owner will suffer lost rent and the associated costs of finding a new tenant, it seems most likely to me the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
I find the fixed term tenancy should end on 24 August 2025. I have chosen this date because it is not clear from the emails when the last day was, and rent is paid up to this date. I do not find I should order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss under section 66(2) RTA. This is because the landlord had plenty of notice - from 4 June at the latest - that the tenant wanted to leave.
The claim for rent arrears until the new tenancy commenced is dismissed.

Did the tenant leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord has claimed the cost of additional cleaning. The tenant does not agree she should have to pay. Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1) RTA.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have seen photos taken at the end of the tenancy. I find the tenant did not leave the apartment in a reasonable condition. The amount claimed for additional cleaning is proved and allowed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when money is taken from the bond at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5349421 — net $337.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$309.99	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$337.99
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$337.99

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Amber Giselle Haley at Unit/Flat Apartment 903, 8 Wigan Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 is reduced and the tenancy ended on 24 August 2025.
Amber Giselle Haley to pay [The landlord/s] $337.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $337.99 Amber Giselle Haley: $1,622.01

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by Ms Fell- Smith.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and compensation following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has applied for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy which was due to end on 4 November 2025. Both parties want the bond returned to them. The landlord took over the management of the tenancy from the owner on 6 June 2025.

Did the owner agree the tenant could move out on 30 June 2025?

The tenant submitted that the owner agreed the fixed term tenancy could end on 30 June 2025 and the tenant only paid rent after that date under duress. The tenant said the landlord should be estopped from claiming rent after 30 June.
The Tribunal may make any orders that the High Court or District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts This includes equitable remedies such as estoppel. See s 78(1)(h) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
A party claiming an equitable estoppel must establish that: a. A belief or expectation has been created or encouraged through some action, representation, or omission to act by the other party; b. The belief or expectation has been reasonably relied on to their detriment; c. It would be unconscionable for the party against whom the estoppel is alleged to depart from the belief or expectation.
The underlying principle of equitable estoppel is to prevent the exercise of strict legal rights in circumstances where the exercise of them would be unconscionable.
Both parties referred me to an email dated 4 June 2025 where the owner replied to the tenant’s request to leave the tenancy on 30 June. The tenant said this and the attached notice to end the fixed term tenancy on 30 June was the representation she relied on to her detriment. The landlord said that email also explained that rent would have to be paid until a new tenant was found. The landlord said the 30 June date in the notice was a mistake.
I can see from the emails that the landlord emailed on 6 June explaining they were the new landlord and that the tenant would have to pay rent until a new tenant was found. They agreed to waive any fees and reasonable costs for the early end of the fixed term tenancy. The tenant did not move out on 30 June.
It is unclear exactly when the tenant moved out. In an email dated 3 September the tenant said she cleaned and vacated the apartment on 29 August 2025. In an email dated 26 September she said:
Because the tenant did not leave on 30 June, and because she continued to pay rent, it seems most likely to me the tenant knew she would have to pay rent until a new tenant was found. I am not persuaded I should find the landlord is estopped from the claim for rent arrears after 30 June.

Should I reduce the fixed term?

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA.
The tenant submitted that the unforeseen change in circumstances is that she had to return to Germany to look after her daughter and take part in custody proceedings. No supporting evidence was submitted on this point but the reason was not challenged by the landlord. This was the same reason given to the owner, who accepted the reason and started the process of ending the fixed term tenancy. The tenant’s verbal evidence at hearing was persuasive. It seems most likely to me there was an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances.
The tenant provided financial information from IRD showing that her total income while she was in tenancy was just over $15,000. She was in receipt of a benefit from MSD. The landlord said the tenant provided information to the owner that showed she had savings outside of New Zealand. The tenant said this was the German equivalent of a KiwiSaver and was not money she could access. I was not provided with any financial information for the landlord. I note the owner is not well.
It seems most likely to me that the tenant will suffer severe hardship if she has to pay $4,900 in rent arrears, which is what the landlord is claiming. While the owner will suffer lost rent and the associated costs of finding a new tenant, it seems most likely to me the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
I find the fixed term tenancy should end on 24 August 2025. I have chosen this date because it is not clear from the emails when the last day was, and rent is paid up to this date. I do not find I should order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss under section 66(2) RTA. This is because the landlord had plenty of notice - from 4 June at the latest - that the tenant wanted to leave.
The claim for rent arrears until the new tenancy commenced is dismissed.

Did the tenant leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord has claimed the cost of additional cleaning. The tenant does not agree she should have to pay. Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1) RTA.
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have seen photos taken at the end of the tenancy. I find the tenant did not leave the apartment in a reasonable condition. The amount claimed for additional cleaning is proved and allowed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenant’s name will be published because there is public interest when money is taken from the bond at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5349421 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Apartment 903, 8 Wigan Street, Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5349421 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Apartment 903, 8 Wigan Street, Te Aro, Wellington

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the owner agree the tenant could move out on 30 June 2025?

Should I reduce the fixed term?

Did the tenant leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the owner agree the tenant could move out on 30 June 2025?

Should I reduce the fixed term?

Did the tenant leave the apartment reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions