What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361673 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5361673?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361673?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13251709-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361673 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5361673?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361673?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13251709-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

42B Marine Parade, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361673 — Leaks

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 February 2025 when an asbestos contamination was discovered at the property rendering the premises uninhabitable from that date.
The tenants (and their three children) left the property urgently when advised it was unsafe to continue living there.
Subsequently in August 2025, the Tribunal ordered the landlord to compensate the tenants $7,860 to replace contaminated goods in 2 bedrooms and for the stress and inconvenience the asbestos contamination and need to leave the property so abruptly had caused.
The landlord has now filed a claim for cleaning and disposing of the remainder of the tenants’ items that were left at the property. Those costs being incurred in September 2025.

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

At the end of a tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish, at the end of the tenancy, that was because of the asbestos contamination which meant the tenants could not reasonably fulfil the obligation at that time.
The tenants say they did not return to retrieve items, when the property manager requested, they do so, several months later, because they did not want and did not consider it was safe to use any items they had left. They also say they were given very limited time to return.
While the landlord says that by August 2025, re-testing had confirmed that the items which the tenants were asked to retrieve, were not contaminated, I accept that the tenants remained unconvinced about this given that their items had likely been exposed over many months after the contamination began but before it was confirmed with testing.
The tenant’s obligation to leave the premises clean and tidy and remove rubbish arises “on the termination of the tenancy” (see s40(1) (c)) which was 24 February and at this time it was simply not possible for the tenants to comply.
The tenants’ inability to comply at the end of the tenancy and reluctance to comply later are entirely understandable and have arisen as a direct consequence of the landlord’s breach (albeit unintentional) of the obligation under s45 (see TT 5199871 dated 22/8/2025) and the premises becoming uninhabitable from 24/2/2025.
In dismissing the claim, I accept the tenants’ evidence that they would have cleaned and removed their possessions at the end of the tenancy, if it was possible to do that, but do not consider it fair for the landlord to retrospectively request the compensation now sought.
They outlined that their family had needed to rely on various friends for emergency accommodation when the tenancy ended. They left essentially all their belongings at the apartment, when they were told it was unsafe to stay as everything was contaminated.
They knew that the leak in the building (and asbestos contamination) had been an issue since December 2024 and believed that the contamination had therefore affected all of their goods, not just the goods in the contaminated rooms.
They said for example the washing machine had been used over that time, between December 2024 and late February 2025, and even if the exterior might have been cleaned, its interior mechanisms were likely contaminated with asbestos and not safe.
They therefore agreed with the landlord that the items likely had no saleable value.
The landlord said the bond had been refunded in full to the tenants and rent refunded to 24/2/2025 back at the time of the first Tribunal hearing in May 2025.
In my view it would not be fair to now award the compensation requested.
The tenant’s inability to ensure the premises were reasonably clean and tidy and remove their possessions arose as a direct consequence of the premises becoming uninhabitable. Exactly why the landlord’s insurance payout did not cover the clean-up costs remained unclear.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 24 February 2025 when an asbestos contamination was discovered at the property rendering the premises uninhabitable from that date.
The tenants (and their three children) left the property urgently when advised it was unsafe to continue living there.
Subsequently in August 2025, the Tribunal ordered the landlord to compensate the tenants $7,860 to replace contaminated goods in 2 bedrooms and for the stress and inconvenience the asbestos contamination and need to leave the property so abruptly had caused.
The landlord has now filed a claim for cleaning and disposing of the remainder of the tenants’ items that were left at the property. Those costs being incurred in September 2025.

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

At the end of a tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
While the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish, at the end of the tenancy, that was because of the asbestos contamination which meant the tenants could not reasonably fulfil the obligation at that time.
The tenants say they did not return to retrieve items, when the property manager requested, they do so, several months later, because they did not want and did not consider it was safe to use any items they had left. They also say they were given very limited time to return.
While the landlord says that by August 2025, re-testing had confirmed that the items which the tenants were asked to retrieve, were not contaminated, I accept that the tenants remained unconvinced about this given that their items had likely been exposed over many months after the contamination began but before it was confirmed with testing.
The tenant’s obligation to leave the premises clean and tidy and remove rubbish arises “on the termination of the tenancy” (see s40(1) (c)) which was 24 February and at this time it was simply not possible for the tenants to comply.
The tenants’ inability to comply at the end of the tenancy and reluctance to comply later are entirely understandable and have arisen as a direct consequence of the landlord’s breach (albeit unintentional) of the obligation under s45 (see TT 5199871 dated 22/8/2025) and the premises becoming uninhabitable from 24/2/2025.
In dismissing the claim, I accept the tenants’ evidence that they would have cleaned and removed their possessions at the end of the tenancy, if it was possible to do that, but do not consider it fair for the landlord to retrospectively request the compensation now sought.
They outlined that their family had needed to rely on various friends for emergency accommodation when the tenancy ended. They left essentially all their belongings at the apartment, when they were told it was unsafe to stay as everything was contaminated.
They knew that the leak in the building (and asbestos contamination) had been an issue since December 2024 and believed that the contamination had therefore affected all of their goods, not just the goods in the contaminated rooms.
They said for example the washing machine had been used over that time, between December 2024 and late February 2025, and even if the exterior might have been cleaned, its interior mechanisms were likely contaminated with asbestos and not safe.
They therefore agreed with the landlord that the items likely had no saleable value.
The landlord said the bond had been refunded in full to the tenants and rent refunded to 24/2/2025 back at the time of the first Tribunal hearing in May 2025.
In my view it would not be fair to now award the compensation requested.
The tenant’s inability to ensure the premises were reasonably clean and tidy and remove their possessions arose as a direct consequence of the premises becoming uninhabitable. Exactly why the landlord’s insurance payout did not cover the clean-up costs remained unclear.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361673 — Leaks at 42B Marine Parade, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361673 — Leaks at 42B Marine Parade, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions