What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5443628 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] and [The party] to pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5443628?

Cleaning: $84.24 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $51.75 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $31.91 awarded to landlord; Outgoings: $35.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5443628?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5443628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13812380-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5443628 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] and [The party] to pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5443628?

Cleaning: $84.24 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $51.75 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $31.91 awarded to landlord; Outgoings: $35.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5443628?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5443628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13812380-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Hensley Crescent, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5443628 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5443628 — net $203.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Outgoings	$35.41	Outgoings
Cleaning: Swimming pool (contribution to chemicals	$84.24	Cleaning: Swimming pool (contribution to chemicals
Lawns and Garden work: 50	$51.75	Lawns and Garden work: 50
Light bulbs/batteries	$31.91	Light bulbs/batteries
Net award	$203.31
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$203.31

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

This landlord application was lodged by the owners after dissatisfaction with their agent regarding vacated matters. There is no impediment here to such an application.

The tenants have applied for the return of their bond.

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.

Were outgoings due?

The landlord claimed $35.41 for the final electricity and gas costs. The tenants accepted this as due. It is 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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The RTA does not require the vacated premises to be in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises. Weeds

The landlord claims the tenant did not attend to weeds. The agent had advised the owners she had seen no weeds at the exit inspection. They responded to her that “Your exit report clearly shows photos with the weeds present in the patio paving and surrounding garden beds”.

An invoice for $103.50 for weed spraying by a contractor was provided. Based on the evidence and submissions I consider there was more than likely a need for action regarding the weeds in the patio paving areas. I do not conclude the same for other areas. I have apportioned 50% of the cost of spraying to the tenants for the area identified as their liability. Light bulbs

The landlord had to replace light bulbs. A total claim for replacement lightbulbs of $206.65 was made. The agent stance prior was that such light bulbs were not standard and therefore a landlord responsibility.

The responsibility for light bulb replacement is not automatically one for the tenant or landlord. Incandescent bulbs have historically been a “standard” light bulb. In my mind, technical advances have changed that. Alternatives such as LEDs are drastically superior to incandescent bulbs in terms of energy efficiency and lifespan. While incandescent bulbs are cheaper upfront, other forms of bulb offer significant long-term energy savings as well better light intensity and performance.

It is also a feature of some speciality lights to have unique bulbs that are particularly expensive to replace.

The life expectancy of modern bulbs means they will often be effective over multiple tenancies, and the time of failure may expose that tenant to an unfair cost if the full replacement cost is assigned to them. The flip side is, for both environmental and financial reasons, the uptake of energy-efficient lighting has appeal and is encouraged.

Here, the agent for the owner determined missing/dead light bulbs as speciality bulbs that remained an owner cost for replacement. The owners disagree and seek compensation for the cost of replaced light bulbs.

The tenants relied on the agent advice regarding liability. They also raised a documented issue at commencement of missing light bulbs. I note this was an issue from the exiting tenant and the owners were consistent that any replacement cost should not sit with the new tenants. Unfortunately, the documentation from the time indicates an intention to replace but no firm evidence it occurred. That must be considered with the tenant submission that a number of light bulbs were never replaced but given their location and other working bulbs replacement was never pursued.

I have sympathy with both stances. Both have some merit. I have considered the evidence from entry and exit, as well as the invoices and make a part-order for the costs incurred of $31.91. Laundry plug

The landlords claimed $9.74 for the cost of a replacement sink plug found to be missing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputed the charge. There is no evidence of a plug at commencement. I do not find the landlord is able to evidence a loss. The claim is dismissed. Swimming pool chemicals

The tenancy came with an inground swimming pool.

The tenancy agreement included a special term that the tenant “agrees the chemicals, water balancing, cleaning etc is maintained by the tenants, the pool water is to be kept in balanced condition as per NZ pool chemistry guidelines.”

The maintenance of the pool was raised during the tenancy and remedial efforts to manage the water quality took place. Previously tenancies have included a pool valet service to maintain the swimming pool.

I heard from the tenants that they conducted a water test at the end of the tenancy. It was in active use at the time.

They took some remedial steps as a result but there is no evidence of the purchase of any chemicals. The agent notes the pool as being clear at exit.

The owners had their own water test conducted and the test results indicated remedial treatment was required. There was an invoice of chemicals purchased and these were reviewed at the hearing. The volume and related cost of some items in the invoice left open a possibility of “more than required” if I was to turn my mind to tenant cost liability.

Both parties have experience with pools. I found the owner particularly knowledgeable, as might be expected. I also consider his expectations from a tenant of the pool maintenance and vacated state of it to be greater than I consider reasonable. To be clear, I acknowledge the tenant testing and claimed treatment, but I do not consider the landlord is precluded from seeking compensation for a later test and remedial costs. Any challenge based on possible altered water quality between testing dates has been considered but I do not find time alone explains the difference.

Having considered the evidence and submissions, I consider the tenants should contribute $84.24 towards the cost of chemicals required to balance the water. This figure is based on the three treatments recommended in the report with adjustments for volume as required.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the insinkerator?

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.

It is well settled that a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.

Furthermore, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.

The tenants notified the agent landlord that the waste disposal had failed in the middle of 2025. They, as they did with other matters, acknowledged liability if the failure was found to be their fault.

No further action was taken by the agent and based on the owners’ submissions, this came as a surprise to them after exit. They had a contractor attend who noted “the unit was blocked and seized making it impossible to rotate and reset did not work.” The unit was replaced and the landlord sought the cost compensated. By this time approximately seven months had lapsed since tenant notification.

In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726 the District Court confirmed there is a duty to mitigate (see section 49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The Court confirmed the test of what the landlord ought to do to mitigate its loss is a factual one and depends on: a. Whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and b. More particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

The challenge here for the landlord is the significant lapsed time since reporting and any remedial action. Assuming the failure occurred during use, the continued “seized” state with organic material present in the unit for that extended period gives rise to some consideration the condition as discovered at exit by the contractor was worse than when the failure occurred. Timely action would have confirmed the cause and possibly permitted a repair than the later replacement, as well as a better assessment of cause and liability.

The tenants fulfilled their requirement to notify the landlord. It is not essential for them to continue to chase up if they are not experiencing any detriment of concern. It appears unfortunate that the agent overlooked appropriate action at the time. Whether that would have changed the outcome is speculative but in the absence of action I consider there was a failure to mitigate the later need to replace the unit and I dismiss the claim. Filing fee

Each party has been successful to an extent, and I leave each to carry their filing cost. Summary

It is clear there is some disagreement between the then agent and owners regarding liability for these claims. The agent-owner relationship is something I have no view on.

As is evident in my determination, an assessment of any such liability based on what is required or reasonable of a tenant will differ between people.

I needed to consider tenant liability only. They rightfully relied on the agent and her assessment at exit. However, that does not bind the owner here.

I conclude by reflecting on what appears to have been an extended tenancy with minimal issues and healthy engagement between the agent and tenants.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5443628 — net $203.31 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Outgoings	$35.41	Outgoings
Cleaning: Swimming pool (contribution to chemicals	$84.24	Cleaning: Swimming pool (contribution to chemicals
Lawns and Garden work: 50	$51.75	Lawns and Garden work: 50
Light bulbs/batteries	$31.91	Light bulbs/batteries
Net award	$203.31
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$203.31