What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399129 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Braziers Limited As Agent For Jules Ganley, Trustee Of

How much money was awarded in case 5399129?

Cleaning: $313.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $244.29 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $431.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399129?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13533687-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399129 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Braziers Limited As Agent For Jules Ganley, Trustee Of

How much money was awarded in case 5399129?

Cleaning: $313.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $244.29 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $431.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399129?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13533687-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Jennifer Street, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5399129 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399129 — net $1,154.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 August 2025	$244.29	Rent arrears to 3 August 2025
Cleaning	$313.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and weeding	$138.00	Rubbish removal: and weeding
Repairs: to walls	$431.25	Repairs: to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,154.54
Bond	$1,996.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,154.54

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Braziers Limited As Agent For Jules Ganley, Trustee Of Jules Ganley Trust $1,154.54 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,996.00 (6071954-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Braziers Limited As Agent For Jules Ganley, Trustee Of Jules Ganley Trust: $1,154.54 [The tenant/s]: $841.46

Reasons

Ms Sanina, Ms Gonzales and Ms Holden attended for the landlord. Mr Khan (tenant) also attended the hearing. The hearing was held by video.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of part of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Mr Khan’s tenancy was a fixed term tenancy commencing on 1 July 2022 to 2 July 2023. The tenancy was renewed by a further fixed term ending on 10 July 2026. A third renewal was entered into from 11 July 2024 to 13 July 2025. Mr Khan sought an extension to 20 July 2025, and then a second extension to 27 July 2025. The tenancy ended on Sunday 3 August 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord claims $244.29 on the basis the rent was paid to the week ending Thursday 30 June 2025, therefore 3 days rent was owing for 1-3 August inclusive.
The tenant’s view is that he paid rent according to the contracts/renewals and that he has paid rent to Sunday 3 August 2025. He says he always pays rent on a Friday for the week in advance ending on a Sunday.
I find the tenant owes the rent claimed for the following reasons: •The two renewal terms did not start on the same day of the week as the initial fixed term. The initial fixed term started on Friday 1 July 2022; the first renewal term started on Monday 3 July 2023; the second renewal term started on Thursday 11 July 2024. •The landlord did not change the rent week (ie Friday to Thursday) to reflect the different start dates of each renewal. Therefore the rent week remained from each Friday to the following Thursday throughout Mr Khan’s tenancy. This can be seen from the rent summary.
The tenant is liable to pay rent for the entire period he is in the premises. I am satisfied that the rent records provided by the landlord proves that Mr Khan paid rent to 31 July 2025 and that he owes rent for 1-3 August.

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 (RTA). Council bins and weeding
The landlord claims $193.20 for emptying the Council yellow, red and green bins and for spraying weeds.
The tenant says that the cost charged is too high and questioned why the landlord had a contractor from Rakaia do the work. I am satisfied from the landlord’s evidence that the travel cost charge reflects a charge from within Christchurch 1 .
I find the landlord’s evidence proves the bins were empty and clean at the start of the tenancy and that they were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s evidence proves there were weeds at the end of the tenancy which needed to be removed.
The tenant raised that he removed ivy that was growing from the neighbour’s property at the start of the tenancy which he believed should be taken into account. The landlord did not dispute the presence of the ivy, but in response said the landlord was not charging the tenant to reinstate the lawn which was damaged at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not claimed for the lawn therefore I have not considered it in relation to the claim in front of me.
The tenant’s evidence is persuasive that the premises was not provided in a reasonably tidy condition at the start of the tenancy as the ivy coming from the neighbour’s property should have been cut back. Accordingly I deduct $55.00 from the cost claimed as an offset. This sum reflects that the work on the ivy was done 3 years before the tenancy ended. Cleaning
The landlord claims $368.00 for cleaning. The cost includes removal of expander foam from the fireplace and a plastic sheet which was taped across the fireplace. The landlord said they had a contractor seal the fireplace prior to the tenancy commenced as a heat pump had been installed to heat the premises.
The tenant’s evidence includes: •there were bugs coming from the fireplace after the tenancy started and he arranged a pest control contractor, who told him the fireplace needed to be sealed. The tenant said he taped the plastic sheet across the opening but did not put any expander foam in the fireplace. 1 The landlord explained the contractor’s workers are in Christchurch, while the company’s director and registered office is in Rakaia. •the extractor fan in the kitchen was replaced in part during the tenancy, but that the exterior case was short and meant oil and grease would blown out the top. The tenant said he did not use the fan for this reason. •his photos from the start of the tenancy which show cobwebs, and dust on wooden panelling.
After considering the evidence I find the premises was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state and that further cleaning was required to bring it to the standard required under the RTA. With regard to the tenant’s defence I find: a. the tenant is liable for the removal of the plastic sheet but is not liable for the removal of the expander foam. In making this finding I am not persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that the expander foam was not installed by their contractor before the tenancy started. b. the landlord’s evidence is convincing that the extractor fan was in working order after it was repaired, as the duct which removed the oil and grease went to the outside of the premises, even if the exterior case (which was decorative rather than functional) did not.
I find the invoice for the cleaning is reasonable and reflects the amount of cleaning required. A deduction of $50.00 is allowed based on the tenant’s evidence as I am persuaded shows the premises did not meet the standard required (dust and cobwebs) at the start of the tenancy, and that the tenant is not liable for removal of the expander foam. The deduction reflects that the work required at the start of the tenancy was 3 years ago.

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.
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 landlord claims $431.25 for damage to walls. A wall in the sunroom and a wall in a bedroom required plaster work and repainting.
The tenant has attempted to carry out repairs to the walls himself. In relation to this part of the claim his submissions and evidence include: •the amount charged is too much for the work required; •the damage was fair wear and tear and resulted from living in the property for 3 years; •there were marks on the walls at the start of the tenancy. The tenant presented photographs from the start of the tenancy that show a drawing pin or similar in the wall and other holes of a comparative size.
After considering the evidence I find that the costs claimed are for walls that have been damaged by the tenant’s son. The tenant has plastered and then painted the walls without properly sanding down the plastered areas. The repairs have not been done to a reasonable standard. The landlord is entitled to have them repaired to that standard.
The District Court in HomeLet Property Management Ltd v Grindley-Alovili 2 found that touching up cupboards with paint that did not match the primary colour of the cupboards is intentional damage. Likewise I find that plastering and painting repaired areas of the walls so that they are not a smooth and to a reasonable finish is intentional damage.
I have considered the tenant’s defence. However I am not persuaded that the damage is fair wear and tear, as it is the result of the attempted repairs or the\at the tenant has been charged for anything other than the damage done during his tenancy. I find the costs claimed are reasonable for the work that has been carried out. The amount claimed is awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved. 2 HomeLet Property Management Ltd v Santara Grindley-Alovili [2019]NZDC 4700.
As the landlord has been mainly successful in its claim reimbursement of the filing fee is awarded.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5399129 — net $1,154.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 August 2025	$244.29	Rent arrears to 3 August 2025
Cleaning	$313.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and weeding	$138.00	Rubbish removal: and weeding
Repairs: to walls	$431.25	Repairs: to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,154.54
Bond	$1,996.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,154.54

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Braziers Limited As Agent For Jules Ganley, Trustee Of Jules Ganley Trust $1,154.54 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,996.00 (6071954-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Braziers Limited As Agent For Jules Ganley, Trustee Of Jules Ganley Trust: $1,154.54 [The tenant/s]: $841.46

Reasons

Ms Sanina, Ms Gonzales and Ms Holden attended for the landlord. Mr Khan (tenant) also attended the hearing. The hearing was held by video.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of part of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Mr Khan’s tenancy was a fixed term tenancy commencing on 1 July 2022 to 2 July 2023. The tenancy was renewed by a further fixed term ending on 10 July 2026. A third renewal was entered into from 11 July 2024 to 13 July 2025. Mr Khan sought an extension to 20 July 2025, and then a second extension to 27 July 2025. The tenancy ended on Sunday 3 August 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord claims $244.29 on the basis the rent was paid to the week ending Thursday 30 June 2025, therefore 3 days rent was owing for 1-3 August inclusive.
The tenant’s view is that he paid rent according to the contracts/renewals and that he has paid rent to Sunday 3 August 2025. He says he always pays rent on a Friday for the week in advance ending on a Sunday.
I find the tenant owes the rent claimed for the following reasons: •The two renewal terms did not start on the same day of the week as the initial fixed term. The initial fixed term started on Friday 1 July 2022; the first renewal term started on Monday 3 July 2023; the second renewal term started on Thursday 11 July 2024. •The landlord did not change the rent week (ie Friday to Thursday) to reflect the different start dates of each renewal. Therefore the rent week remained from each Friday to the following Thursday throughout Mr Khan’s tenancy. This can be seen from the rent summary.
The tenant is liable to pay rent for the entire period he is in the premises. I am satisfied that the rent records provided by the landlord proves that Mr Khan paid rent to 31 July 2025 and that he owes rent for 1-3 August.

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 (RTA). Council bins and weeding
The landlord claims $193.20 for emptying the Council yellow, red and green bins and for spraying weeds.
The tenant says that the cost charged is too high and questioned why the landlord had a contractor from Rakaia do the work. I am satisfied from the landlord’s evidence that the travel cost charge reflects a charge from within Christchurch 1 .
I find the landlord’s evidence proves the bins were empty and clean at the start of the tenancy and that they were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s evidence proves there were weeds at the end of the tenancy which needed to be removed.
The tenant raised that he removed ivy that was growing from the neighbour’s property at the start of the tenancy which he believed should be taken into account. The landlord did not dispute the presence of the ivy, but in response said the landlord was not charging the tenant to reinstate the lawn which was damaged at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not claimed for the lawn therefore I have not considered it in relation to the claim in front of me.
The tenant’s evidence is persuasive that the premises was not provided in a reasonably tidy condition at the start of the tenancy as the ivy coming from the neighbour’s property should have been cut back. Accordingly I deduct $55.00 from the cost claimed as an offset. This sum reflects that the work on the ivy was done 3 years before the tenancy ended. Cleaning
The landlord claims $368.00 for cleaning. The cost includes removal of expander foam from the fireplace and a plastic sheet which was taped across the fireplace. The landlord said they had a contractor seal the fireplace prior to the tenancy commenced as a heat pump had been installed to heat the premises.
The tenant’s evidence includes: •there were bugs coming from the fireplace after the tenancy started and he arranged a pest control contractor, who told him the fireplace needed to be sealed. The tenant said he taped the plastic sheet across the opening but did not put any expander foam in the fireplace. 1 The landlord explained the contractor’s workers are in Christchurch, while the company’s director and registered office is in Rakaia. •the extractor fan in the kitchen was replaced in part during the tenancy, but that the exterior case was short and meant oil and grease would blown out the top. The tenant said he did not use the fan for this reason. •his photos from the start of the tenancy which show cobwebs, and dust on wooden panelling.
After considering the evidence I find the premises was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state and that further cleaning was required to bring it to the standard required under the RTA. With regard to the tenant’s defence I find: a. the tenant is liable for the removal of the plastic sheet but is not liable for the removal of the expander foam. In making this finding I am not persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that the expander foam was not installed by their contractor before the tenancy started. b. the landlord’s evidence is convincing that the extractor fan was in working order after it was repaired, as the duct which removed the oil and grease went to the outside of the premises, even if the exterior case (which was decorative rather than functional) did not.
I find the invoice for the cleaning is reasonable and reflects the amount of cleaning required. A deduction of $50.00 is allowed based on the tenant’s evidence as I am persuaded shows the premises did not meet the standard required (dust and cobwebs) at the start of the tenancy, and that the tenant is not liable for removal of the expander foam. The deduction reflects that the work required at the start of the tenancy was 3 years ago.

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.
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 landlord claims $431.25 for damage to walls. A wall in the sunroom and a wall in a bedroom required plaster work and repainting.
The tenant has attempted to carry out repairs to the walls himself. In relation to this part of the claim his submissions and evidence include: •the amount charged is too much for the work required; •the damage was fair wear and tear and resulted from living in the property for 3 years; •there were marks on the walls at the start of the tenancy. The tenant presented photographs from the start of the tenancy that show a drawing pin or similar in the wall and other holes of a comparative size.
After considering the evidence I find that the costs claimed are for walls that have been damaged by the tenant’s son. The tenant has plastered and then painted the walls without properly sanding down the plastered areas. The repairs have not been done to a reasonable standard. The landlord is entitled to have them repaired to that standard.
The District Court in HomeLet Property Management Ltd v Grindley-Alovili 2 found that touching up cupboards with paint that did not match the primary colour of the cupboards is intentional damage. Likewise I find that plastering and painting repaired areas of the walls so that they are not a smooth and to a reasonable finish is intentional damage.
I have considered the tenant’s defence. However I am not persuaded that the damage is fair wear and tear, as it is the result of the attempted repairs or the\at the tenant has been charged for anything other than the damage done during his tenancy. I find the costs claimed are reasonable for the work that has been carried out. The amount claimed is awarded.
The amounts ordered are proved. 2 HomeLet Property Management Ltd v Santara Grindley-Alovili [2019]NZDC 4700.
As the landlord has been mainly successful in its claim reimbursement of the filing fee is awarded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399129 — Property damage at 12 Jennifer Street, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399129 — Property damage at 12 Jennifer Street, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions