What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5020088?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (6166789-002) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5020088?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Failure To Maintain Oven: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $33.76 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $638.55 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Curtain Rails: $166.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $501.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020088?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11858167-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5020088?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (6166789-002) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5020088?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Failure To Maintain Oven: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $33.76 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $638.55 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Curtain Rails: $166.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $501.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020088?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11858167-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

434 Great South Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5020088 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5020088 — net $1,240.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Reinstate curtain rails	$166.75		Reinstate curtain rails
Lock/key replacement	$638.55		Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal (garden waste	$501.29		Rubbish removal (garden waste
Light bulbs/batteries	$33.76		Light bulbs/batteries
Failure to maintain oven		$400.00	Failure to maintain oven
Total award	$1,640.35	$400.00
Net award	$1,240.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,240.35

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5020088 — net $1,240.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning and carpet cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning and carpet cleaning
Reinstate curtain rails	$166.75		Reinstate curtain rails
Lock/key replacement	$638.55		Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal (garden waste	$501.29		Rubbish removal (garden waste
Light bulbs/batteries	$33.76		Light bulbs/batteries
Failure to maintain oven		$400.00	Failure to maintain oven
Total award	$1,640.35	$400.00
Net award	$1,240.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,240.35

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (6166789-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Trailblazer Holdings Limited trading as Healthy Homes Property Management as Agent for Suma & Jairam Varma: $1,240.35 Raylene Rehua-Moore: $919.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 May 2025.
On 30 September 2024 the landlord applied for cleaning, lock replacement, gardening costs, lightbulb replacement, and refund of the bond.
On 19 March 2025 the tenant applied for compensation for failure to maintain and breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a periodic tenancy from 1 May 2020. The initial weekly rent was $540.00.
The tenancy ended on 9 April 2024 pursuant to a 63 days’ notice to vacate. The reason given in the termination notice was that the owners wanted to move back into the premises. The vacate date was subsequently extended to 26 April 2024 by agreement. Landlord’s Application Cleaning and Carpet Cleaning
The landlord claimed $500.00 for cleaning ($290.00) and carpet cleaning ($210.00). The landlord said there was a strong odour caused by smoking.
The tenant’s son was smoking inside the property for a period of 3 months. The tenant said the main odour in the house was mould. Before vacating she spent 5 hours cleaning with friends and used an industrial carpet cleaner. The tenant acknowledged that there were several stains in the carpet that could not be removed.
The premises were reasonably clean at the entry inspection on 24 March 2020. An interim inspection report dated 10 May 2023 referred to some bathroom ceiling mould. The “pre-exit” report dated 9 February 2024 does show some carpet and window stains and the oven needed cleaning. There is some bathroom ceiling mould visible in the photographs. There were similar findings in the final inspection report dated 26/27 April 2024. It was noted that the fireplace had not been cleaned out. There was visible mould in the bathroom.
The tenant was told the oven was going to be replaced so she thought it didn’t need to be cleaned. However, I consider the tenant had an obligation to leave the premises in a reasonably clean condition whether the cooker was to be replaced or not.
While the fireplace needed to be cleaned out at the end of the tenancy, I cannot ascertain its condition in the 24 March 2020 inspection report. The fireplace is not mentioned in the cleaning invoice. I decline to award cleaning costs for the fireplace.
I award the carpet cleaning and $90.00 for general cleaning (1 hour for the oven, 1 hour for windows and vacuuming, and 1 hour for the ceiling mould at $30.00 per hour) a total award of $300.00. Curtain Cleaning and Replacement Net Curtains
The landlord claimed $313.95 for the cost of cleaning curtains and for replacement net curtains.
The tenant said the curtains were mouldy at the start of the tenancy. A local community trust removed the curtains and tracks in July 2023 and installed insulated curtains. The original curtains were taken down, rolled up and placed in a black rubbish bag.
The tenant said she offered to sell her curtains prior to her vacate date but receiving no reply, the landlord’s curtains and tracks were left at the premises and she took her new curtains and rails with her. I consider that the tenant was entitled to install new curtains and to take them with her when she vacated.
The landlord said the curtains had been stored incorrectly and were mouldy. The curtains also needed cleaning because the tenant had allowed smoking inside the property. The landlord’s opinion was that the curtains had been allowed to get mouldy by not adequately ventilating the premises.
There is limited evidence about the condition of the curtains at the start of the tenancy. There are some photographs of curtains in the 24 March 2020 entry report. The curtains look clean, although I note the tenancy did not start until 1 May 2020 due to Covid. It is likely the premises were left empty for that period. The tenant provided a couple of photographs of yellow curtains showing some mould, and of the net curtains after these had been taken down.
Overall, it is unclear whether the curtains were reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy, whether the tenant stored them appropriately, and whether they needed cleaning afterwards. I decline to award this cleaning cost.
The landlord claimed $177.00 for replacement net curtains. The landlord said 4 sets were missing. The tenant said she left the nets with the curtains. Again, it is unclear what happened to the net curtains, and I decline to award compensation.
The tenant said she left the original curtain rails, tracks, and hooks behind. The landlord claimed $166.75 for having to reinstate the rails and said they also needed to be wiped clean. The basis for this claim was that the tenant allowed the community trust to install new curtains without the landlord’s permission.
I view the installation of thermal curtains as a “minor change”. The landlord would not have been able to refuse permission for this change if it had been sought (section 42B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). The tenant did, however, have an obligation to return the premises to substantially the same condition. I find the tenant liable for the cost of reinstatement of the curtain rails ($166.75). Locks
The landlord claimed $638.55 for replacement locks. According to the landlord, 7 different keys were supplied. There were 3 keys for the deadbolt on the front door, a key for the backdoor, 2 keys for the front door, and a key for the side-door to the lounge. Four locks did not have keys returned – the front door deadbolt and mortice, the side-door to the lounge, and the mortice lock for the back door.
The tenant said 2 keys were returned and there was no key for the sliding door in the lounge. She also said that only 2 mortice locks were replaced, and not 3 as charged by the landlord. The tenant said she had been given 6 keys.
The tenant provided a photograph of the keys she was given. These were 2 front door a back door and lounge door keys (4 in total). The tenant advised the landlord on 26 April 2024 that she had left 2 keys for the front door, the back door key had been lost, and the key to the side door only worked for one summer and then would not open.
The tenant’s obligation at the end of the tenancy was to return all the keys. This did not happen because only 2 keys were returned. Although the tenant said she did not have a key for the side door (a point she made in an email dated 8 May 2024) her text message of 26 April 2024 seems to contradict that. I am satisfied that all the locks needed to be changed because each lock had a missing key. Garden Waste
The landlord claimed $501.29 for the collection and disposal of garden waste, including trailer hire and tip fees.
The tenancy agreement provided that the tenant would keep the grounds and garden tidy and remove any garden waste and rubbish. The relevant clause provided that if the tenant failed to keep the property in reasonable condition the landlord could employ a professional gardener – the condition of the grounds at the start of the tenancy being indicative of “reasonable condition”.
The tenant said the trees needed a prune at the start of the tenancy and no maintenance to the trees, gutters, or drains was performed by the landlord. For most of the tenancy she did her best to maintain the garden and knew someone who would remove the garden waste for free. They were unable to remove the final bag of rubbish, which the landlord said needed two people to lift onto the trailer.
The available evidence supports the tenant’s view that she maintained the gardens in a reasonable condition for most of the tenancy. The process of moving out after 4 years may have contributed to difficulties keeping on top of things.
The landlord’s photographs showed a trailer load of garden waste removed from the premises. The lawns needed mowing. Garden waste had been piled up in the garden beds. There was a full plastic rubbish bag in the garden and a car battery was left behind. Garden waste was found behind the shed.
The landlord’s ingoing photographs do not show pristine grounds. The lawns look in need of mowing and line trimming. A hedge around the carport looks overgrown, and indeed the tenant mentioned that she had to cut this back. A hedge down the side of the property needed trimming.
I accept that there was garden waste and organic rubbish (garden and food waste) at the end of the tenancy which had not been removed by the tenant, as well as a few inorganic items (a car battery and wooden frame). There were two trailer loads taken to the tip. The amounts claimed by the landlord do not seem to include lawn mowing or hedge/tree trimming, which I would not have awarded. I award the amounts claimed for garden waste removal. Light Bulbs
The landlord claimed $72.76 to replace missing light bulbs in the bathroom. The tenancy agreement provided that the tenant was responsible for replacing light bulbs. I award the cost of the bulbs ($33.76).
I decline to award $39.00 for labour to purchase replacement bulbs and to fit them. I consider that the time involved is part of the landlord’s overheads, or general cost of doing business, and installing the new bulbs would likely have been relatively straightforward. Outgoings
I record that the tenant is paying $25.00 per week towards an outstanding water invoice for $427.43. Tenant’s Application Faulty Cooker and Electricals
The tenant said she had to use a portable cooker for the last 4 months of the tenancy, with no action to repair (at the hearing the tenant seemed to indicate this was a problem for about 6 weeks). The landlord said the owners declined to replace the oven prior to the end of the tenancy. He did not dispute that there was a fault.
The tenant said there were electrical issues throughout the tenancy. There were constant problems with the stove, waste-master, lights, and hot water.
The tenant raised an issue about the stove elements on 17 November 2020. On 13 May 2023 she advised that none of the elements were working. A work order for repairs to the oven was issued dated 8 August 2023. This also referred to repairs to the stove top performed in May 2023, when the elements had stopped working (an inspection report dated 16 May 2023 also noted that the cooker had been fixed).
The tenant reported a blown fuse on 30 July 2023. The fridge, oven, and power points were not working. The landlord issued a work order the next day, which stated a light switch was tripping the electrical circuit.
The tenant reported a power outage on 5 February 2024. The stove, lights and some of the power sockets were not working. The issues appear to have been fixed, at least initially, by 7 February 2024, although there is a text message from the tenant on 28 February 2024 asking when the stove was going to be fixed.
Text messages on 25 and 28 April 2024 refer to ongoing problems with the stove and oven. The tenant recorded the landlord telling her that the owners were not going to fix or replace the appliance until she had vacated.
Under section 45 of the Act the landlord had an obligation to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and to comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
A landlord is not in breach of their maintenance obligation if they do not remedy a latent or hidden defect. This means that a landlord’s maintenance obligation is limited to observable or notified defects, and a tenant has an independent obligation to notify the landlord of damage or the need for repairs (section 45(1)(d)). Landlords must investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention in a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord did not ignore the tenant’s notification of issues with the cooker and the electrical system. I am however concerned that nothing seems to have been done about the oven near the end of the tenancy. There were also issues with the electrical wiring likely related to the age of the property, which was constructed in 1950 according to one internet site (although the design is more reminiscent of the 1970’s). The tenant said the electrical system would frequently trip and be repaired after 2-3 days. She estimated there was about a month of outages in total. It is unclear whether the electrical problems exacerbated issues with the oven or vice-versa.
I award compensation for loss of use of the oven for 2 months in the sum of $400.00 (approximately $50.00 per week for 8 weeks). The tenant should have been provided with a working oven for the entirety of her tenancy.
The evidence does not clearly establish that the electrical problems were caused by maintenance issues which the landlord ought to have rectified, although they could be evidence of a failure to maintain. I make no award in respect of the power outages. Healthy Homes Standards
The tenant said there was an issue with ventilation in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. An undated Healthy Homes Compliance Assessment (prepared by the landlord, not by an independent third party) stated that the premises met the requirements for openable windows and doors. It was not practical to install a rangehood or extractor fan in the kitchen. The bathroom and ensuite were stated to have an extractor fan vented to the exterior. The premises have ceiling and underfloor insulation according to a certificate of compliance issued by an insulation installer on 25 March 2018.
The compliance assessment is not entirely convincing, because it has not been prepared by a disinterested third party. It is unclear whether the landlord has the necessary qualifications to prepare the assessment. That said, I cannot identify any obvious errors or misunderstanding of the Healthy Homes Standards on the face of the report, which is detailed. Ideally, whether it was reasonably practicable to install a rangehood/extractor fan in the kitchen required comment from a professional installer. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the report provided by the landlord.
I am not satisfied that there was a breach of the Healthy Homes Standards on the evidence available. Carport
The tenant claimed compensation for loss of use of the carport. This was damaged in a storm and collapsed. The tenant said it was not repaired for 5 months and for that time it was unsafe for the tenant and her family to use that area. During this period, instead of the rent being reduced for lack of use, it was increased by $100.00 to $640.00 from 7 July 2022.
The landlord said it took time to work through the insurance claim and organise a repair. He mentioned that this was during the Covid period. The landlord noted that the carport was open, so it could not really be used for storage by the tenant. In written submissions after the hearing the landlord said the process took about 3 months.
I do not view this as a failure to maintain by the landlord. The damage to the carport was caused by a storm, without fault on either side. I am also not satisfied that the landlord could have remedied the issue any sooner. Unlawful Termination Notice
The tenant said the landlord gave notice of termination because the owners wanted to move back in. The tenant said the premises remained vacant for 3 months and were then rented to people she knew and at a higher rent.
The landlord said the owners instructed him that they wanted to move back into the property, so he gave the appropriate notice. The owners were not named in the tenant’s application. It is possible that they genuinely intended to move back in but then changed their minds after the tenancy had ended. I also consider it would not be appropriate in any event, under agency law principles, to hold the landlord liable for merely acting on the owner’s instructions.
On the available evidence, I find it has not been shown that the termination notice was not given for valid and genuine reasons. Filing Fee
Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs of the proceeding.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020088 — Property damage at 434 Great South Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020088 — Property damage at 434 Great South Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions