How much money was awarded in case 5458052?

Lawns and Garden Work: $185.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5458052?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5458052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13891501-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5458052?

Lawns and Garden Work: $185.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5458052?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5458052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13891501-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3C Woodall Place, Totara Vale, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5458052 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5458052 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5458052 — net $185.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and Garden work	$185.00	Cleaning and Garden work
Net award	$185.00
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$185.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Runwei Peng $185.00 from the bond, calculated below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Runwei Peng: $185.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,735.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by videoconference.

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

The landlord’s claim is for $391.00 plus the filing fee. Despite that, the whole of the tenants’ bond of $2,920.00 remains held at the Bond Centre. The landlord says that the tenant’s rejected its offer to release the unclaimed part of the bond. The tenants say they understood that either the landlord’s claim against the bond would be paid out or the whole of the bond would remain held in dispute. That seems likely because there is no reason from the tenant’s point of view, why the undisputed part of the bond should not be released to them. That was within the landlord’s power to do and it should have been done.

The tenants have been hounded by a daily txt demanding payment of the landlord’s claim. The landlord knows the claim is dispute. Those txts are entirely inappropriate.

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

The tenancy ended on 11 January 2026 because the owner was moving back in.

The final inspection was completed on the 12 th and the landlord formed the view that more cleaning was required to being the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. They had commercial cleaners clean the premises before the owner moved in on the 15 th . The cost of that work totalling $391.00 is claimed.

The landlord informed the tenants about the extra cleaning work it thought was needed but did not give the tenants the chance to do it themselves because the landlord knew the tenants were overseas. The landlord did not breach its obligation to mitigate the claimed loss 1 .

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 2 .

The question here is whether the tenants left the remises reasonably clean and tidy. Photographs provided by both aprties prove that in almost all respects, the remises were left reasonably clean and tidy. Tenants are not required to leave the premises spotless or turnkey ready for the next occupant. 1 S.49 RTA 2 S. 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA

In some specific areas, the evidence shows the premises were not left reasonable and the tenants should contribute to the costs incurred by the landlord in having additional cleaning work done.

Those areas are: a. the outside areas show significant growth of weeds that it was the tenants’ responsibility to keep under control. From the evidence I assess $75.00 as a fair contribution to the cost of the weeding work; b. the shower was left with significant residue build up. The tenants say it was calcium residue, which the landlord’s email appears to confirm. I do not agree with the tenants that they are not responsible for keeping that build up under control. Unless calcium residues are from extreme water composition or a cause that is the landlord’s responsibility, such as a leak, keeping surfaces clean of such residues is part of a tenant’s responsibility to keep premises reasonably clean and tidy; c. the rangehood needed further cleaning. The tenants say it was not clean when the tenancy started. That is something they could have raised with the landlord then 3 . It was not provided reasonably clean when the tenancy ended.

I assess $110.00 as fair compensation for that work and removal of the rubbish.

No Order is made about the filing fees paid by each party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5458052 — net $185.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and Garden work	$185.00	Cleaning and Garden work
Net award	$185.00
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$185.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Runwei Peng $185.00 from the bond, calculated below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Runwei Peng: $185.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,735.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by videoconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim is for $391.00 plus the filing fee. Despite that, the whole of the tenants’ bond of $2,920.00 remains held at the Bond Centre. The landlord says that the tenant’s rejected its offer to release the unclaimed part of the bond. The tenants say they understood that either the landlord’s claim against the bond would be paid out or the whole of the bond would remain held in dispute. That seems likely because there is no reason from the tenant’s point of view, why the undisputed part of the bond should not be released to them. That was within the landlord’s power to do and it should have been done.
The tenants have been hounded by a daily txt demanding payment of the landlord’s claim. The landlord knows the claim is dispute. Those txts are entirely inappropriate.

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

The tenancy ended on 11 January 2026 because the owner was moving back in.
The final inspection was completed on the 12 th and the landlord formed the view that more cleaning was required to being the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. They had commercial cleaners clean the premises before the owner moved in on the 15 th . The cost of that work totalling $391.00 is claimed.
The landlord informed the tenants about the extra cleaning work it thought was needed but did not give the tenants the chance to do it themselves because the landlord knew the tenants were overseas. The landlord did not breach its obligation to mitigate the claimed loss 1 .
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 2 .
The question here is whether the tenants left the remises reasonably clean and tidy. Photographs provided by both aprties prove that in almost all respects, the remises were left reasonably clean and tidy. Tenants are not required to leave the premises spotless or turnkey ready for the next occupant. 1 S.49 RTA 2 S. 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA
In some specific areas, the evidence shows the premises were not left reasonable and the tenants should contribute to the costs incurred by the landlord in having additional cleaning work done.
Those areas are: a. the outside areas show significant growth of weeds that it was the tenants’ responsibility to keep under control. From the evidence I assess $75.00 as a fair contribution to the cost of the weeding work; b. the shower was left with significant residue build up. The tenants say it was calcium residue, which the landlord’s email appears to confirm. I do not agree with the tenants that they are not responsible for keeping that build up under control. Unless calcium residues are from extreme water composition or a cause that is the landlord’s responsibility, such as a leak, keeping surfaces clean of such residues is part of a tenant’s responsibility to keep premises reasonably clean and tidy; c. the rangehood needed further cleaning. The tenants say it was not clean when the tenancy started. That is something they could have raised with the landlord then 3 . It was not provided reasonably clean when the tenancy ended.
I assess $110.00 as fair compensation for that work and removal of the rubbish.
No Order is made about the filing fees paid by each party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5458052 — Tenancy dispute at 3C Woodall Place, Totara Vale, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5458052 — Tenancy dispute at 3C Woodall Place, Totara Vale, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions