Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5525909 — Cleanliness at 28A Great North Road, Waipawa, Waipawa 4210
Decided 11 Sept 2026 · Published 11 Sept 2026 · Application 5525909
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- Bryceson Limited As Agent For Elizabeth Itchley[The tenant/s] $579.90 immediately, calculated below.
- The Bond Centre must pay the remaining bond of $684.05 (BN-16856216) to [The tenant/s], immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Background
- This tenancy began on 16 April 2021. It was to end on 22 May 2026 after the landlord issued a 90 day termination notice on 21 February 2026. The notice included a statement, “As the owners intend to sell the property vacant, I may be in touch to arrange a real estate agent to appraise the home.”
- The tenant requested an additional day to do more cleaning which was agreed, to so the tenancy ended on 23 May. The exit inspection was done on 24 May.
- After completing the final inspection the landlord formed the view that the tenant had not met her obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- It had the following work done: a. cleaning – cost $700.00; b. carpet cleaning – cost $300.84; and c. installation of smoke alarm and light bulb replacement – cost $235.11 TOTAL $1,235.95.
- The landlord wrote to the tenant on 9 June 2026: “Hi Tui, The final invoice was received today. Please find the attached invoices, which total $1,235.95. These costs are to be deducted from the bond held of $1,920.00. Please note that I have not charged for the weed spraying or the replacement key. If you are happy to accept the outgoing costs, please let me know and I will forward the bond refund form for your signature. If you do not agree to the deductions, I will arrange for the undisputed balance of $684.05 to be refunded and will lodge an application with the Tenancy Tribunal to seek recovery of the remaining amount.”
- On 11 June the landlord wrote to the tenant, “I didn't hear from you yesterday and assume you were happy to pay outgoing expenses. Would you please complete the attached bond refund and return to me for lodgement with the bond centre.”
- The landlord’s evidence is that the tenant did not respond. On 12 June the property manager sent the bond refund form to the Bond Centre saying, “Please process the attached bond refund. I have been unable to contact the tenant to sign the documents.”
- The Bond Centre wrongly processed the landlord’s request and released the claimed amount of $1,235.95 to the landlord. The remaining $684.04 remains at the Bond Centre.
- The Bond Centre’s error is acknowledged in a response to the tenant’s complaint dated 23 June 2026 (reference MB-7439089)
- The landlord brought this application on 15 June 2026. seeking compensation for the 3 invoices noted above.
- The tenant brought her cross application on 16 July 2026. She seeks the following Orders and declarations: • A declaration that the lawful rent was $550/week from 17 May 2024 until the end of the tenancy. • A declaration that the Section 56 notice issued on 19 April 2026 was invalid because it relied on incorrect rent amounts. • A declaration that the 90‑day notice issued on 21 February 2026 was retaliatory under Section 54 RTA. • An order requiring the landlord to provide a full rental ledger for the entire tenancy. • An order confirming the landlord released the bond without my signature or consent. • An order preventing the landlord from pursuing any further cleaning or gardening charges. • An order correcting the tenancy record to reflect the accurate rent, payments, notices, and bond status. • An order reimbursing reasonable costs incurred due to the landlord’s unlawful conduct and retaliatory behaviour. 16 You want to claim the application fee Landlord Claims
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. 1 The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. 2 The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
- The exit inspection report provided by the landlord shows that the carpets had marks and stains that the landlord was justified in having commercially cleaned. The cost is not untoward and is proved by the invoice provided.
- Some very close up photographs in the exit inspection report show areas of the premises which were not left as clean as they ought to have been. They do not show a need for 11 hours work @ $60.000 per hour for the premises to be brought to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. An outgoing tenant is not required to leave the premises turnkey ready for the next occupation or to be shown for sale. Based on the evidence provided I assess compensation for 4 hours of the cleaner’s time (plus GST) to be a reasonable contribution by the tenant to the cost of the cleaning. 1 S.40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA 2 S. 40(1)(ca) RTA
- The electrician’s invoice provided by the landlord shows that as well as installing a smoke alarm provided by the tenant he replaced 16 light bulbs. The charge is reasonable and represents a loss caused by the tenant not meeting her obligation to replace those bulbs. Tenant claims A declaration that the lawful rent was $550/week from 17 May 2024 until the end of the tenancy A declaration that the Section 56 notice issued on 19 April 2026 was invalid because it relied on incorrect rent amounts.
- The rent at the start of the tenancy on 14 April 2021 was $480.00 per week. It increased to $490.00 from 22 April 2022, to $500.00 from 16 May 2023, to $550.00 from 17 May 2024, and was charged at $575.00 from 17 May 2025.
- The tenant says that: a. the rent increase to $575.00 was not properly notified to her; and b. the rent was improperly charged at $600.00 per week from 27 May 2025. She seeks a refund of overpaid rent.
- On 13 February 2026, the landlord provided the tenant a copy of a notice of rent increase dated 14 March 2025, increasing the rent to $575.00 from 17 may.
- The tenant says she never received that notice.
- The landlord was unable to provide evidence of that rent increase notice having been served on the tenant. He was given the opportunity to provide that evidence after the hearing and submitted a log from his software provider “Palace” showing that an e-mail was sent to the tenant on 14 March 2025 to [redacted], the e-mail address for service given by the tenant in the agreement.
- As the tenant points out, that is not proof of the content of the e-mail but it is consistent with the date on the notice provided on 13 February this year.
- The landlord’s rent records show that from 27 May 2025, the tenant began paying rent at $1,200.00 per fortnight. She says that is because she was told the rent had increased to $600.00. I cannot find any evidence of that amount of rent having been asked for by the landlord. The landlord’s rent records show rent charged at $575.00 per week from 17 May 2025 through to the end of the tenancy.
- The $1,200.00 fortnightly payments made by the tenant are surprising if she had in fact received a notice increasing the rent to $575.00.
- The landlord e-mailed the tenant on 28 May 2025 saying, “You forgot to increase your rent yesterday, would you please top this up today and adjust your AP going forward.” No amount is given and the date does not coincide with the date the landlord’s notice says the increase took effect or when the landlord’s rent records show rent began being charged at $575.00 (17 May).
- A landlord is able to increase the rent 12 months after the last increase. Sixty days’ written notice of the increase must be given. 3 The notice can be served to an e-mail address for service. 4 Previous notices, which the tenant accepts were properly served, were e-mailed to her thorough the same Palace messaging system to her e-mail service address.
- I find it more likely than not, that the message to the tenant on 14 March 2025, included the 90 day notice of rent increase dated the same day. That met the requirements for the landlord to serve the notice, whether the tenant was aware of it or not.
- I therefore find that the rent was validly increased to $575.00 per week from 17 May 2026. No refund of rent is proved to be owed.
- It follows that the Tribunal cannot make the declarations the tenant has asked for. A declaration that the 90‑day notice issued on 21 February 2026 was retaliatory under Section 54 RTA.
- A landlord is entitled to end a periodic tenancy by giving 90 days’ notice. No reasons are required. 5
- However, giving a termination notice is unlawful if it is, “....motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy”. 6
- The tenant lodged a Tribunal application on 16 February 2026 (application number 5445948) 5 days before she was given notice of termination. That application was later withdrawn.
- Understandably, she is concerned there is a link between her exercising her right to apply to the Tribunal and her tenancy being ended. She says her suspicions about that are proved because in the notice the reason she was given for her tenancy being ended was the owner selling the property. But after she moved out she discovered it was relisted for rent.
- I can understand that the tenant would have felt misled when she found the property being rented again after her tenancy had been terminated, especially 3 See s.24(1)(c) RTA 4 S.136(d) RTA 5 S.51(1) RTA 6 S.54(2) RTA after the stress and hardship ending the tenancy had caused her. The coincidence in timing between the tenant’s Tribunal application and having her tenancy ended raises a reasonable inference that there is a link.
- The owner was called to give evidence about that. Her evidence was that she had intended to sell the property and asked the property manager to give notice accordingly. She insisted that there was no connection between that decision and the tenant’s prior application to the Tribunal. When the property was vacant the sales appraisal did not match her price expectations so she decided to wait a bit and rent the property out again in the meantime, although it is still for sale.
- The owner was the person responsible for the decision to end the tenancy. Only she can speak to her motivations. I have no basis to question her direct evidence that the notice of termination was not motivated by the tenant exercising her rights or complaining about the tenancy.
- Because a landlord does not need to justify a decision to terminate a periodic tenancy by notice, if follows that as long as they are not acting in retaliation against the tenant, those reasons can change.
- I do not find this claim proved. The Tribunal cannot make the declaration the tenant has asked for. An order requiring the landlord to provide a full rental ledger for the entire tenancy An order confirming the landlord released the bond without my signature or consent
- The landlord has provided in evidence a full rent record from the start of the tenancy. An Order to do so is not required
- It is proved that the bond claimed by the landlord was improperly released to the landlord by the Bond Centre.
- That does not mean though that the landlord was acting improperly. Either party is able to apply to the Bond Centre for release of the bond without the agreement of the other party. 7 The evidence does not show that the landlord misled the Bond Centre into believing that the tenant agreed to the bond being paid out. An order preventing the landlord from pursuing any further cleaning or gardening charges
- The Tribunal cannot Order either party not to exercise their right to bring further applications to the Tribunal. 7 S.22A RTA
- I understand though that these are the only claims the landlord makes in respect of this tenancy An order correcting the tenancy record to reflect the accurate rent, payments, notices, and bond status.
- This Order addresses those issues. An order reimbursing reasonable costs incurred due to the landlord’s unlawful conduct and retaliatory behaviour.
- I have not found breaches of the landlord’s obligations proved so there is no basis for an award of compensation.
- The Tribunal cannot make an award of costs except in circumstances that do not apply here. 8
- No order is made about the filing fees each party has paid.