What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5147271?

The tribunal order states: Kate Alexandra Parlato (nee Clements) to pay Team Manawatu Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 5147271?

Cleaning: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Holes From Bracket: $161.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147271?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11890809-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5147271?

The tribunal order states: Kate Alexandra Parlato (nee Clements) to pay Team Manawatu Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 5147271?

Cleaning: $325.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Holes From Bracket: $161.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147271?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11890809-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Kimberley Grove, Westbrook, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5147271 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5147271 — net $963.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$325.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Holes from bracket	$161.00	Repairs: Holes from bracket
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$963.00
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$963.00

Kate Alexandra Parlato (nee Clements) to pay Team Manawatu Rentals Limited - As Agent For Graeme & Dianne Elliot $963.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (3322867-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Team Manawatu Rentals Limited - As Agent For Graeme & Dianne Elliot: $963.00 Kate Alexandra Parlato (nee Clements): $1,197.00

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend. She made adjournment applications before the hearing, which were declined. She then advised the Tribunal that she would not attend the hearing but provided evidence in response to the claims. I have considered all of the evidence and communications from the tenant. Adjournment Requests

The tenancy ended in late 2024. This application was made in January 2025. In March, the parties were advised that the hearing would occur by video, on 22 May 2025.

The tenant contacted the Tribunal on 19 May, requesting an adjournment. She was asked to provide a medical certificate to support her request.

Providing a medical certificate does not entitle a party to an adjournment. The certificate is one piece of evidence which the Tribunal will consider when determining an adjournment application. The medical certificate should set out a medical reason why the person is not able to attend and participate in a hearing. It would also assist the Tribunal if the certificate recorded that the practitioner had some knowledge of the nature of the hearing; this one was a short video hearing.

The tenant provided a medical certificated on 21 May. The document contained one sentence, stating that the tenant could not attend the hearing. The certificate did not set out the grounds for the practitioner’s opinion.

The tenant was asked to provide a more fulsome medical certificate. The start of the hearing was deferred to give her an opportunity to obtain that evidence the morning before the hearing, if necessary.

The landlord was advised of the adjournment request and opposed the adjournment.

The tenant provided an updated medical certificate late in the afternoon before the hearing. Again, the certificate contained little information as to why the tenant could not attend a one-hour video hearing and/or was unable to represent herself. The reasons given for the certificate, suggested that a hearing may be stressful but did not clearly identify a physical or mental incapacity.

The tenant maintained that I was required to grant the adjournment in the interests of natural justice.

Natural justice requires me to consider the interests of both parties. I am also mindful that the Tribunal is to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. See s85 Residential Tenancies Act.

Where a tenant makes a late adjournment request, it is incumbent on them to provide the proper evidence to allow the Tribunal to make an informed decision. A scant medical certificate which provides no basis for the practitioner’s opinion is not sufficient.

Weighing the evidence provided by the tenant, the landlord’s desire to have the matter resolved, the inability to reallocate Tribunal resources at this late stage, the nature of the dispute and the hearing modality, I declined the adjournment request.

The tenant was not prejudiced by my refusal to grant the adjournment as I allowed her time to provide written or documentary evidence, which she did. I note that she had not provided any response to the claims within the timeframe set out in the Notice of Hearing.

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 landlord maintains that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish (including green waste from beside the garage). The tenant disputes the claims.

The standard is reasonably clean; it is not pristine or commercially clean. Both parties provided photographic evidence from the end of the tenancy. The tenant provided a list of the cleaning she did at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for the cleaning which was done after the tenant left.

The tenant’s photographs suggest that the premises were reasonably clean. They are photographs from a distance. The landlord’s photographs more clearly show grime and dirt buildup that had not been addressed on walls, skirtings, windowsills, shower base and switches. On balance, the landlord has established that it is more likely than not that the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. I award $450.00 of the $621.00 having regard to the landlord’s photographs and the extent of cleaning likely to have been required to return the premises to a reasonable standard.

The landlord also established that there were stains on the carpet at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice. I award the amount claimed for stain removal of $325.00.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Large screw holes where a bracket was removed from the wall. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord provided photographs and a receipt for the repair cost. I award the amount claimed, $161.00.

As the landlord was substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5147271 — net $963.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$325.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Holes from bracket	$161.00	Repairs: Holes from bracket
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$963.00
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$963.00

Kate Alexandra Parlato (nee Clements) to pay Team Manawatu Rentals Limited - As Agent For Graeme & Dianne Elliot $963.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing.

The tenancy ended in late 2024. This application was made in January 2025. In March, the parties were advised that the hearing would occur by video, on 22 May 2025.

The tenant contacted the Tribunal on 19 May, requesting an adjournment. She was asked to provide a medical certificate to support her request.

The landlord was advised of the adjournment request and opposed the adjournment.

The tenant maintained that I was required to grant the adjournment in the interests of natural justice.

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

As the landlord was substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147271 — Cleanliness at 37 Kimberley Grove, Westbrook, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147271 — Cleanliness at 37 Kimberley Grove, Westbrook, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions