What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402913 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claim of overpaid rent is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5402913?

40 Corokia "Geenty'S Green" Plants: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402913?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13016274-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402913 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claim of overpaid rent is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5402913?

40 Corokia "Geenty'S Green" Plants: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402913?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13016274-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Rimu Street, Mangakino, Mangakino 3421 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5402913 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402913 — net $1,328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
40 Corokia "Geenty's Green" plants	$1,300.00	40 Corokia "Geenty's Green" plants
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,328.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,328.00

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.

Mr Hawkes, the property Manager, appeared for the landlord.

Ms Sharp, the tenant, appeared together with her mother, who attended as her support person.

The tenancy ended in October 2025. Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord sought to retain the bond to cover costs for cleaning and replacement of plants in the garden. Ms Sharp disputes both charges, stating that the property was left reasonably clean and tidy and that the cost claimed for the plants was excessive.

Ms Sharp filed an application for the return of her bond. Mr Hawkes filed a cross-application seeking that the bond be applied toward the landlord’s claimed costs.

At the hearing, both parties were given the opportunity to present their evidence and submissions. Overpaid Rent

During the hearing, Ms Sharp confirmed that the matter of overpaid rent was no longer in dispute and did not require adjudication. That issue is therefore dismissed.

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.

Mr Hawkes stated that the landlord incurred costs for interior cleaning totalling $1,052.25. There was, however, no final inspection report filed prior to the hearing. Mr Hawkes sought to file that report during the hearing. I declined to admit it, as the hearing was already in progress and I considered that the matter could be determined based on the evidence already before the Tribunal.

Ms Sharp filed a series of photographs showing the condition of the property at the time she vacated. From those photos, it appears that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I am not persuaded by the evidence that the property required professional cleaning of the interior.

As to the exterior windows, Mr Hawkes accepted that the marks were bird droppings and confirmed that this aspect of the cleaning claim was no longer being pursued. I consider that sensible, as it would be difficult to establish when the exterior windows became dirty, whether before or after Ms Sharp vacated the premises.

Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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 issue under this heading concerns the replacement of 40 plants along the property boundary. Mr Hawkes described the plants as Corokia virgata, while Ms Sharp referred to them as Corokia ‘Geenty’s Green’. The precise botanical distinction is not relevant to the determination.

Ms Sharp did not dispute that her father accidentally caused the death of the plants. The dispute concerns the replacement cost.

Mr Hawkes relied on a quotation showing a total cost of $2,080.00, representing 40 plants at $52 each, described as 70cm+ in height when planted. Ms Sharp produced an alternative quotation showing a total of $836.80, representing plants of an average height of 35cm.

There is no evidence before me as to the average height of the plants at the commencement of the tenancy. In the absence of such evidence, I cannot definitively determine which quotation represents a more accurate replacement value.

However, taking into account both quotations and Ms Sharp’s acceptance that her father caused the damage and that she accepts liability for a sum “... no more than just over a grand for trees...,” I consider it fair and reasonable to award $1,000 for the replacement plants, together with $300 for labour to replant them.

Accordingly, I find that the landlord is entitled to $1,300 for the replacement of the damaged plants. Filing fee

Both parties have had partial success. Accordingly, costs are to lie where they fall.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402913 — net $1,328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
40 Corokia "Geenty's Green" plants	$1,300.00	40 Corokia "Geenty's Green" plants
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,328.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,328.00

Both parties attended the hearing by video conference.

Mr Hawkes, the property Manager, appeared for the landlord.

Ms Sharp, the tenant, appeared together with her mother, who attended as her support person.

Ms Sharp filed an application for the return of her bond. Mr Hawkes filed a cross-application seeking that the bond be applied toward the landlord’s claimed costs.

At the hearing, both parties were given the opportunity to present their evidence and submissions. Overpaid Rent

During the hearing, Ms Sharp confirmed that the matter of overpaid rent was no longer in dispute and did not require adjudication. That issue is therefore dismissed.

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

Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for cleaning is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Ms Sharp did not dispute that her father accidentally caused the death of the plants. The dispute concerns the replacement cost.

Accordingly, I find that the landlord is entitled to $1,300 for the replacement of the damaged plants. Filing fee

Both parties have had partial success. Accordingly, costs are to lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402913 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Rimu Street, Mangakino, Mangakino 3421

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402913 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Rimu Street, Mangakino, Mangakino 3421

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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