What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453970 about?

The tribunal order states: Sandy Marie Ander must pay [the landlord] $1,146.56 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5453970?

Cleaning: $553.29 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Fibre Box: $281.77 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $960.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $247.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453970?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13515949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453970 about?

The tribunal order states: Sandy Marie Ander must pay [the landlord] $1,146.56 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5453970?

Cleaning: $553.29 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $316.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Fibre Box: $281.77 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $960.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $247.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453970?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13515949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Address redacted] Tenancy Tribunal Case 5453970 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453970 — net $1,146.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$553.29	Cleaning
Carpet and window cleaning	$316.25	Carpet and window cleaning
Rubbish removal	$250.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$400.00	Lawns and Garden work
Window repairs	$247.25	Window repairs
Curtain cleaning	$30.00	Curtain cleaning
Fibre box	$281.77	Fibre box
Loss of rent	$960.00	Loss of rent
Filing Fee	$28.00	Filing Fee
Net award	$1,146.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,146.56

Order

Sandy Marie Ander must pay [the landlord] $1,146.56 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 [bond number redacted] to [the landlord] immediately.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is granted.
The tenant’s request for name suppression is declined.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for the bond, compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s obligations relating to insulation, maintenance and the presence of methamphetamine contamination of the premises.
The landlord has applied for compensation and payment of the bond following the end of the tenancy. Background
The premises are a 1950s four-bedroom house that the landlord and her husband have owned for approximately 11 years.
They lived in the premises until three or four years ago and since then it has been a rental property.
They renovated the bathroom six years ago and at that time they installed new insulation to that side of the roof space being approximately half the space. That was the rear half of the premises comprising the living area and bedrooms one, two and three.
The insulation in the roof space at the front of the premises remained as it was when they bought the premises. The manhole to the roof space is in that part of the premises.
This tenancy began on 8 November 2025 for a fixed term to November 2026. It and ended on 18 February 2026 after the tenants gave notice which the landlord accepted.
The landlord allowed the tenant access to the premises until 20 February to complete their move out and for cleaning, tidying and rubbish removal. Tenant’s Claims Insulation
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
The tenant claims that the premises did not comply with insulation requirements for the roof space and under the floor.
There is no access under the floor so there was no evidence as to what was under there or even as to the nature of the foundations.
The landlord does not believe that there is any insulation under there and says that there is not enough, or possibly not any, space under the floor to install insulation.
It is unusual to have a situation where the nature of the foundations for the premises are unknown. Photographs of the premises show the house with concrete paths, driveways or patio meeting the plastered walls a short distance below the floor level. There are no signs of any ventilation to the underfloor.
It is possible that the premises sit on a concrete slab although that would not be typical for the era. In any case, the evidence suggests that there would be either no or not enough space under the floor for insulation to be installed. Certainly, the tenant has not provided any evidence to contradict that and there is no evidence that there is any access to the space.
I find, therefore, that it is impractical to install insulation under the floor and so it is exempt for the requirements.
The tenant’s evidence in relation to the roof space consists of a video taken by a relative who installs insulation for a living. It has been taken from the manhole and so it shows the front of the premises.
The tenant says that it shows that there is no insulation there. I disagree. There is clearly insulation between the rafters. It has obviously been there for some time, and we know from the landlord it was there when they bought the premises. I find therefore that it predates 1 July 2016.
The landlord asserted that it is at least 12mm thick and so meets the requirements. The R value is unknown.
In the Healthy Homes Statement provided with the tenancy agreement the landlord has stated the thickness of the insulation to be 10cm.
Neither the landlord nor the tenant has measured the thickness of the insulation.
Judging by the level of the insulation relative to the rafters, the landlord’s estimate of 10cm thickness is probably reasonable. She said that when she and her husband were living in the premises, they found it to be warm with the wood burner going and they have no complaints from other tenants about the comfort of the premises.
The onus is on the tenant to prove her claims and the evidence before the Tribunal is not enough to prove that R value of the insulation is less than 1.9 as required by the Regulations.
I would recommend that the landlord gets the insulation assessed for compliance with the requirements.
For the reasons given this claim is dismissed. Hot Water Cylinder
The tenant says that the hot water cylinder was faulty. There is no expert evidence to support that, but the tenant says that it constantly turned on and off with a high level of frequency. She said that her power bills were excessive and, in her application, claimed that one power bill was for $4,000.
At the hearing she moderated that claim down to $3,500. She had not provided any evidence of her power bills and said that they would be accessible from her telephone which was in the car. We therefore adjourned for her to retrieve her telephone which she did and emailed three of her power bills to the Tribunal.
None of the bills appeared excessive. Her first bill showed a balance due of $3,681 but $3,200 of that was a balance owing from another property. The bill also included internet charges.
The tenant’s claim swingeing power bills due to a faulty water heater have been shown to be hyperbolic and false. There is no evidence to support the claim that the water cylinder was faulty and so the claim is dismissed. Methamphetamine
The tenant claims that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine when they were provided to her.
There is no evidence to support this apart from her hearsay evidence that she was told by a neighbour that the previous tenants smoked marijuana in a caravan parked in front of the premises and reference to some other rumours around the town.
The Tribunal requires a high degree of proof of methamphetamine contamination regardless of who is making the allegation. That will always require a test result from an independent and competent tester. There has been no test in this case and there is no reliable evidence whatsoever. The claim is therefore dismissed.
It follows that the tenant’s application must be dismissed. The Landlord’s Claims
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
There are limitations on how much a landlord can recover for damage depending on the landlord’s insurance. Those limitations are not relevant in this case. Cleaning
The landlord claims cleaning costs in the sum of $490 based on an invoice and $63.29 for the cost of cleaning products bought at the request of the cleaner.
The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. From the landlord’s photographs, it would appear that the tenant did no end-of-tenancy cleaning and that the premises were not kept reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy.
The tenant questioned the cost of materials and suggested that the cost should have been included in the cleaner’s hourly rate of $35.
I find that given the extent of cleaning that was needed, the cost overall for a four-bedroom house is reasonable.
The tenant also argued that she was unable to carry out cleaning on 20 February when she arrived at the premises at 3pm from Reefton. There was a power outage at that time, and she said the landlord gave her until 5pm at the premises whereas she was entitled to be there until 11.59pm.
I reject these arguments. The tenancy ended on 18 February and so any time given to the tenant to attend to end-of-tenancy tasks was an indulgence. The premises should have been left clean and tidy by 11.59pm on 18 February.
I also accept that landlord’s evidence that it was the tenant who said that she would be finished by 5pm. In any case there was a very considerable amount of work to do in terms of cleaning, rubbish removal and garden work. The tenant is being entirely unrealistic to suggest that the she would have had time to make any meaningful progress. I note as well that there was much that could have done without power, and it was not done.
I therefore award the claim in full. Carpet and Window Cleaning
The landlord claimed $316.25 for carpet and window cleaning based on an invoice.
The carpet was left dirty and stained and needed professional cleaning. The windows also needed cleaning.
The tenant said that the landlord told her not to worry about damage to the carpet because they intended to replace them anyway. I don’t accept that. The carpet had a few stains in places at the start of the tenancy as noted on the condition report but otherwise they were in reasonable condition. The landlord would have no reason to give the tenant carte blanche to damage the carpet.
The landlord confirmed that it was her intention to replace the carpet over time and she did in fact replace the carpet in the main bedroom and the lounge because they were too far gone. There is no claim for that, and the cleaning relates to the other areas.
I am satisfied that the cost is payable by the tenant, and I have awarded it. Rubbish Removal and Dumping Fees
The landlord claims $271.51 based on an invoice for this. The tenant accepts it save for a chest of drawers that belonged to the landlord. The landlord accepted that, and I have therefore reduced the award to $250. Garden Work
The landlord claims $598.42 for garden work. The garden was left in a poor state with many weeds and long grass. There are modest sized garden areas front and back.
The tenant says the charge is excessive and I agree. For example, the dump fees appear to bear no relation to the green waste that could have been generated from the garden work.
In my view a reasonable charge would have been $400, and I have awarded that. Window Damage
A pane of glass in a window was found to be broken at the end of the tenancy. No such damage is noted on the condition report. The tenant said that she had no knowledge of it. I am satisfied that it happened during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damages. I have therefore awarded $247.25 for the cost of repair based on the invoice provided. Curtain Cleaning
The curtains were left with marks on them and the landlord took them to the laundrette to clean them. She claims only the charge for using the laundrette not her own time. The tenant accepts it, and it has been awarded. Fibre Box
There was a fibre box at the premises for the internet. The tenant’s son took it with him when the tenant vacated the premises.
The tenant sent a text to the landlord shortly after she vacated stating that she had it and she would return it as soon as possible. That was after the landlord had blocked her texts and told her so and asked to be contacted only by email or via the Tribunal. The tenant did not do so. She meant to bring the fibre box to the hearing, but she forgot to do so. She said that Tenancy Services advised her to bring it to the hearing.
In the meantime, the landlord replaced the box because it was needed to provide internet to the premises.
The tenant was right to know that she should return the box promptly. That is what she should have done. She could have contacted the landlord by email to make the arrangements. The landlord didn’t know she had it and it was reasonable for her to replace it. I have therefore awarded the cost of doing so based on the invoice provided. Loss Of Rent
The landlord relet the premises from 9 March. She had viewings on 21 February and accepted a tenant who could have moved in on Monday 23 February. They were working locally and staying in a motel at that time. Because the premises were not in a fit state to be occupied, they were not able to move in until 9 March.
I accept that the loss of rent is due directly to the tenant’s breach of her end-of- tenancy obligations. I have therefore awarded the two weeks loss of rent. Filing Fees
The landlord has been largely successful, and I so have awarded her the filing fee. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenant, and she must pay the award above that. Suppression
There is no basis to suppress the tenant’s name. The landlord has been substantially successful, and I so have granted her name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453970 — net $1,146.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$553.29	Cleaning
Carpet and window cleaning	$316.25	Carpet and window cleaning
Rubbish removal	$250.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$400.00	Lawns and Garden work
Window repairs	$247.25	Window repairs
Curtain cleaning	$30.00	Curtain cleaning
Fibre box	$281.77	Fibre box
Loss of rent	$960.00	Loss of rent
Filing Fee	$28.00	Filing Fee
Net award	$1,146.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,146.56

Order

Sandy Marie Ander must pay [the landlord] $1,146.56 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 [bond number redacted] to [the landlord] immediately.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is granted.
The tenant’s request for name suppression is declined.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for the bond, compensation and exemplary damages for breach of the landlord’s obligations relating to insulation, maintenance and the presence of methamphetamine contamination of the premises.
The landlord has applied for compensation and payment of the bond following the end of the tenancy. Background
The premises are a 1950s four-bedroom house that the landlord and her husband have owned for approximately 11 years.
They lived in the premises until three or four years ago and since then it has been a rental property.
They renovated the bathroom six years ago and at that time they installed new insulation to that side of the roof space being approximately half the space. That was the rear half of the premises comprising the living area and bedrooms one, two and three.
The insulation in the roof space at the front of the premises remained as it was when they bought the premises. The manhole to the roof space is in that part of the premises.
This tenancy began on 8 November 2025 for a fixed term to November 2026. It and ended on 18 February 2026 after the tenants gave notice which the landlord accepted.
The landlord allowed the tenant access to the premises until 20 February to complete their move out and for cleaning, tidying and rubbish removal. Tenant’s Claims Insulation
From 1 July 2019, all residential premises must be insulated to a minimum standard. Where the premises were insulated before 1 July 2016, the ceiling insulation must have an R-value of at least 1.9 (or 1.5 for houses of a brick or concrete block construction). The underfloor insulation must have an R-value of at least 0.9. The insulation must be in reasonable condition.
There are exceptions to these requirements, for example, where it is not reasonably practicable to install insulation, or where there is a habitable space above or below the ceiling or floor that would otherwise have to be insulated.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
The tenant claims that the premises did not comply with insulation requirements for the roof space and under the floor.
There is no access under the floor so there was no evidence as to what was under there or even as to the nature of the foundations.
The landlord does not believe that there is any insulation under there and says that there is not enough, or possibly not any, space under the floor to install insulation.
It is unusual to have a situation where the nature of the foundations for the premises are unknown. Photographs of the premises show the house with concrete paths, driveways or patio meeting the plastered walls a short distance below the floor level. There are no signs of any ventilation to the underfloor.
It is possible that the premises sit on a concrete slab although that would not be typical for the era. In any case, the evidence suggests that there would be either no or not enough space under the floor for insulation to be installed. Certainly, the tenant has not provided any evidence to contradict that and there is no evidence that there is any access to the space.
I find, therefore, that it is impractical to install insulation under the floor and so it is exempt for the requirements.
The tenant’s evidence in relation to the roof space consists of a video taken by a relative who installs insulation for a living. It has been taken from the manhole and so it shows the front of the premises.
The tenant says that it shows that there is no insulation there. I disagree. There is clearly insulation between the rafters. It has obviously been there for some time, and we know from the landlord it was there when they bought the premises. I find therefore that it predates 1 July 2016.
The landlord asserted that it is at least 12mm thick and so meets the requirements. The R value is unknown.
In the Healthy Homes Statement provided with the tenancy agreement the landlord has stated the thickness of the insulation to be 10cm.
Neither the landlord nor the tenant has measured the thickness of the insulation.
Judging by the level of the insulation relative to the rafters, the landlord’s estimate of 10cm thickness is probably reasonable. She said that when she and her husband were living in the premises, they found it to be warm with the wood burner going and they have no complaints from other tenants about the comfort of the premises.
The onus is on the tenant to prove her claims and the evidence before the Tribunal is not enough to prove that R value of the insulation is less than 1.9 as required by the Regulations.
I would recommend that the landlord gets the insulation assessed for compliance with the requirements.
For the reasons given this claim is dismissed. Hot Water Cylinder
The tenant says that the hot water cylinder was faulty. There is no expert evidence to support that, but the tenant says that it constantly turned on and off with a high level of frequency. She said that her power bills were excessive and, in her application, claimed that one power bill was for $4,000.
At the hearing she moderated that claim down to $3,500. She had not provided any evidence of her power bills and said that they would be accessible from her telephone which was in the car. We therefore adjourned for her to retrieve her telephone which she did and emailed three of her power bills to the Tribunal.
None of the bills appeared excessive. Her first bill showed a balance due of $3,681 but $3,200 of that was a balance owing from another property. The bill also included internet charges.
The tenant’s claim swingeing power bills due to a faulty water heater have been shown to be hyperbolic and false. There is no evidence to support the claim that the water cylinder was faulty and so the claim is dismissed. Methamphetamine
The tenant claims that the premises were contaminated by methamphetamine when they were provided to her.
There is no evidence to support this apart from her hearsay evidence that she was told by a neighbour that the previous tenants smoked marijuana in a caravan parked in front of the premises and reference to some other rumours around the town.
The Tribunal requires a high degree of proof of methamphetamine contamination regardless of who is making the allegation. That will always require a test result from an independent and competent tester. There has been no test in this case and there is no reliable evidence whatsoever. The claim is therefore dismissed.
It follows that the tenant’s application must be dismissed. The Landlord’s Claims
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish and leave all chattels provided for their benefit.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
There are limitations on how much a landlord can recover for damage depending on the landlord’s insurance. Those limitations are not relevant in this case. Cleaning
The landlord claims cleaning costs in the sum of $490 based on an invoice and $63.29 for the cost of cleaning products bought at the request of the cleaner.
The premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. From the landlord’s photographs, it would appear that the tenant did no end-of-tenancy cleaning and that the premises were not kept reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy.
The tenant questioned the cost of materials and suggested that the cost should have been included in the cleaner’s hourly rate of $35.
I find that given the extent of cleaning that was needed, the cost overall for a four-bedroom house is reasonable.
The tenant also argued that she was unable to carry out cleaning on 20 February when she arrived at the premises at 3pm from Reefton. There was a power outage at that time, and she said the landlord gave her until 5pm at the premises whereas she was entitled to be there until 11.59pm.
I reject these arguments. The tenancy ended on 18 February and so any time given to the tenant to attend to end-of-tenancy tasks was an indulgence. The premises should have been left clean and tidy by 11.59pm on 18 February.
I also accept that landlord’s evidence that it was the tenant who said that she would be finished by 5pm. In any case there was a very considerable amount of work to do in terms of cleaning, rubbish removal and garden work. The tenant is being entirely unrealistic to suggest that the she would have had time to make any meaningful progress. I note as well that there was much that could have done without power, and it was not done.
I therefore award the claim in full. Carpet and Window Cleaning
The landlord claimed $316.25 for carpet and window cleaning based on an invoice.
The carpet was left dirty and stained and needed professional cleaning. The windows also needed cleaning.
The tenant said that the landlord told her not to worry about damage to the carpet because they intended to replace them anyway. I don’t accept that. The carpet had a few stains in places at the start of the tenancy as noted on the condition report but otherwise they were in reasonable condition. The landlord would have no reason to give the tenant carte blanche to damage the carpet.
The landlord confirmed that it was her intention to replace the carpet over time and she did in fact replace the carpet in the main bedroom and the lounge because they were too far gone. There is no claim for that, and the cleaning relates to the other areas.
I am satisfied that the cost is payable by the tenant, and I have awarded it. Rubbish Removal and Dumping Fees
The landlord claims $271.51 based on an invoice for this. The tenant accepts it save for a chest of drawers that belonged to the landlord. The landlord accepted that, and I have therefore reduced the award to $250. Garden Work
The landlord claims $598.42 for garden work. The garden was left in a poor state with many weeds and long grass. There are modest sized garden areas front and back.
The tenant says the charge is excessive and I agree. For example, the dump fees appear to bear no relation to the green waste that could have been generated from the garden work.
In my view a reasonable charge would have been $400, and I have awarded that. Window Damage
A pane of glass in a window was found to be broken at the end of the tenancy. No such damage is noted on the condition report. The tenant said that she had no knowledge of it. I am satisfied that it happened during the tenancy and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damages. I have therefore awarded $247.25 for the cost of repair based on the invoice provided. Curtain Cleaning
The curtains were left with marks on them and the landlord took them to the laundrette to clean them. She claims only the charge for using the laundrette not her own time. The tenant accepts it, and it has been awarded. Fibre Box
There was a fibre box at the premises for the internet. The tenant’s son took it with him when the tenant vacated the premises.
The tenant sent a text to the landlord shortly after she vacated stating that she had it and she would return it as soon as possible. That was after the landlord had blocked her texts and told her so and asked to be contacted only by email or via the Tribunal. The tenant did not do so. She meant to bring the fibre box to the hearing, but she forgot to do so. She said that Tenancy Services advised her to bring it to the hearing.
In the meantime, the landlord replaced the box because it was needed to provide internet to the premises.
The tenant was right to know that she should return the box promptly. That is what she should have done. She could have contacted the landlord by email to make the arrangements. The landlord didn’t know she had it and it was reasonable for her to replace it. I have therefore awarded the cost of doing so based on the invoice provided. Loss Of Rent
The landlord relet the premises from 9 March. She had viewings on 21 February and accepted a tenant who could have moved in on Monday 23 February. They were working locally and staying in a motel at that time. Because the premises were not in a fit state to be occupied, they were not able to move in until 9 March.
I accept that the loss of rent is due directly to the tenant’s breach of her end-of- tenancy obligations. I have therefore awarded the two weeks loss of rent. Filing Fees
The landlord has been largely successful, and I so have awarded her the filing fee. Result
The bond will be paid to the tenant, and she must pay the award above that. Suppression
There is no basis to suppress the tenant’s name. The landlord has been substantially successful, and I so have granted her name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453970 — Cleanliness at [Address redacted]

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453970 — Cleanliness at [Address redacted]

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions