What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5150153?

The tribunal order states: Suzanne Lee Smith must pay Karen Herbert $500.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5150153?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5150153?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5150153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11777187-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5150153?

The tribunal order states: Suzanne Lee Smith must pay Karen Herbert $500.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5150153?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5150153?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5150153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11777187-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Lincoln Road, Carterton, Carterton 5713 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5150153 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

41 Lincoln Road, Carterton, Carterton 5713 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5150153 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5150153 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$550.00		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Cladding repair	$200.00		Cladding repair
Rent arrears	$550.00		Rent arrears
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$150.00	Loss of amenity
Total award	$1,450.00	$150.00
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Claims and awards for application 5150153 — net $500.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Cladding repair

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cladding repair

Rent arrears

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Compensation: Loss of amenity

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Loss of amenity

Total award

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Suzanne Lee Smith must pay Karen Herbert $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 (3301362-011) to Karen Herbert immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has ended, but disputes have arisen in relation to matters at or near the end of the tenancy.

BACKGROUND

This is a tenancy of long duration, commencing on 3 July 2013.
The tenant terminated the tenancy by text message notice on 27 September 2024, recording that the final date of the tenancy would be 13 October. The tenant states she moved out on 12 October.
Disputes arose around cleaning and rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy, and whether further rent was due. The tenant has claimed for various matters around maintenance work at the tenancy.
A hearing was convened in Masterton today, 30 April 2025, with both parties appearing.

WITNESS EVIDENCE

Sean Smith

Mr Smith is the tenant’s son, and attended and gave evidence for the tenant. I summarise that evidence as follows: a. The burn pile for the house was behind the house. b. The original fence was tin. c. The gardens were ‘not left in a mess’. d. Mr Smith saw the tenant cleaning the house at the end of the tenancy. e. The rubbish was burnt on site because of the pending need to return the tenancy to the landlord. f. The landlords photographs are largely correct, although there were some photographs the witness did not consider correctly represented the situation at the end of the tenancy. Dylan Smith
Dylan Smith is another son of the tenant, and also attended to give evidence. Again I summarise that as follows: a. Mr Smith confirmed that he assisted with tidying up the premises, and burned some of the wood on site. b. A number of people assisted with getting the house ready to return to the landlord. c. There were some paua shells left the premises, perhaps around 50. d. Mr Smith disputes that some of the items like the wood shown in the landlords photograph, were left on the premises by them

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rubbish removal and dumping fee b. House cleaning c. Repairing the cladding on porch d. Repair to doors and wall e. Rent to end of notice period (18 October 2024)
The tenant confirmed her claims are as follows: a. Bond refund b. Rent overpayment c. Unlawful entry and quiet enjoyment d. Maintenance

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Rubbish removal and dump fees

The landlord’s position is that there was extensive rubbish left on the premises at the end of the tenancy that needed to be removed and dumped. That included wood that was taken off-site and disposed of (burnt). There was a chicken coop that needed to be removed. The landlord claims for time in removing the rubbish being 7.5 hours, plus the dump fees. The landlord claims a total $650.
The tenant states that she wanted to do the work herself, but the landlord went ahead and did the work anyway.
The tenant submits that some of the items shown in the photograph were already on the tenancy when she rented it, or washed there from a drain, such as the iron, tyres, drums and pots. The tenant accepts that the pallets and chairs were hers, as were the paua shells left by the tenant. The tenant considers that she did leave some ‘good things’ on the premises, which the landlord has kept. The tenant considers that the landlord should have said what needed to be removed so she could have done that work.
In conclusion the landlord said that the tenant did not give her an opportunity to meet with her at the end of the tenancy. The landlord considers that there were no items of value left on the premises when the tenant vacated the premises. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
When I consider the photographs provided, I do not consider that the tenant did return the premises reasonably clean and tidy. While there is a dispute between the parties as to the ownership of some of the items left, the tenant has nevertheless accepted at the hearing that some of the items that were described by the landlord, were hers, for example the old chairs, pallets and paua shells.
Further I note a range of items the tenant accepts that she left as recorded in a written document on the file from the tenant, that includes: a. Kitchen cabinet b. Table and shelf in the sun room c. Bin with fertiliser d. Plastic worm farm e. Fish pond f. Deck g. Wood box h. Planter boxes i. Pot plants j. Wooden table and three chairs k. 6 plastic pallets and 3 wooden pallets
It is not a particularly uncommon situation that there is a difference of opinion as to whether certain items would be classed as rubbish, but the scheme of the act is that when the tenant leaves the premises, they need to take all of their belongings, and dispose of the rubbish. To put it another way, they should leave the tenancy largely as they found it.
The tenant must be responsible for any costs incurred by the landlord, in removing the rubbish or items that were left by her, and that can include compensating the landlord for their own reasonable time in doing so.
There is, however, a dispute between the parties, as to responsibility for some of the items that the landlord needed to dispose of, in particular, corrugated iron, and large items of wood. In relation to those items, the tenant states that the corrugated iron was a part of the old fence, and that the wood was there when she moved in. I will accept the tenancy evidence that those items were there on the tenancy when she first rented the premises, so she could not reasonably be liable for the costs and disposing of them.
But overall, I don’t consider that would have added significantly to the rubbish disposal costs for the landlord. The landlord has claimed $650, but I consider a fair outcome would be to reduce the cost by $100, to take account of the items on the section, that I is not the tenant’s responsibility. I consider an order of $550 would be reasonable for the tip, fees, and time in disposing of the other items left by the tenant.
I conclude by noting that a further concern raised by the tenant is that she was not told by the landlord that she needed to remove the items that are the subject of this claim, and undertake cleaning, which is the subject of the next claim. The law is clear that the obligation is on the tenant to remove all rubbish and return the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There is strictly no legal obligation on the landlord to tell the tenant that the premises do not meet that standard, or to give the tenant another opportunity to return and get the work done. Once the tenancy comes to an end, the obligation falls squarely on the tenant to ensure the premises are reasonably clean and tidy, and if they are not, then the tenant has breached their obligation, and the claim can be ordered against them. Claim 2 – House cleaning
The landlord’s position is that the premises were not clean at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states that they paid the incoming tenant to do 6 hours cleaning, but they were not happy with the standard of that cleaning so did further cleaning. The landlord claims 6 hours at $50.00.
In response, the tenant says that she moved out of the premises on 12 October, and believes that the house was returned to the landlord clean. The tenant states that she had wiped down the surfaces. The tenant said that it was only on 24 October that the landlord responded to her, and said it was unreasonable.
The tenant considers that the mould is the result of a lack of maintenance at the premises from having no putty in the windows.
The tenant considers that the landlord has applied ‘filters’ to the photographs, and therefore the photographs are not an accurate reflection of the inside of the dwelling.
The landlord disputes that the photographs have been doctored in any way. Analysis
I have set out the relevant legal considerations above, that is, at the end of the tenancy. The tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
These claims are always difficult, because there are frequently differing opinions between an outgoing tenant, and the landlord, as to whether the premises are reasonably clean. Ultimately, however, the obligation to prove the claim is on the landlord, it is the landlord who must show that the premises are not reasonably clean, and if the landlord did not establish that, then the claim would be dismissed. Invariably, these sorts of claims are determined based on the photographic evidence, which allows the Tribunal to make its own determination as to whether the cleaning was a reasonable level.
Having reviewed the evidence, particularly the photographs, I conclude that this claim has been established but only as it relates to what appears to be mould or similar to an interior wall. The tenant has not convinced me that that would simply have arisen from no putty in the windows. I consider a fair level of compensation for cleaning those walls and ceiling would be $150.
Otherwise I am not persuaded that the remainder of the tenancy was unclean. I can see no reason to prefer the landlord’s oral evidence over the tenants.
I therefore award $150 for cleaning the walls and ceiling. Claim 3 – Cladding repairs
The landlord has claimed $200.00 for the repair of cladding broken on the back porch.
The tenant says that she had reported the broken panel, but the damage occurred when she tripped on her gumboots, falling onto the panel breaking it. Analysis
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
While there is a difference of opinion between the parties as to how the damage occurred, even accepting the description from the tenant, I would find the tenant is liable for the damage. There is no dispute between the parties that the damage occurred during the tenancy, which means that the tenant must prove the damage was not careless or intentional damage. In my assessment, if a person tripped over on gumboots, landing on panelling, damaging it, it would be careless damage, which means the tenant is liable for the repairs.
The landlord has claimed $200 to repair the panel. That seems reasonable to me, I am confident that if the landlord were to have the panel commercially repaired, it would be well over that amount, and therefore I order the claim in full. Claim 4 – Repairs to doors and walls
The landlord states there was damage to bedroom doors and walls. The landlord seeks a nominal charge of $200.00 toward the repairs.
The tenant states that one door in the lounge was previously damaged, and there was other damage to the premises. However the tenant agrees that she did put one dent in the bathroom door where she ‘knocked it’. The tenant considers the bedroom was previously damaged. The tenant considers there were a couple of dents in the walls, but noting she had been there for 11 years. The tenant considers this is a wear and tear situation. Analysis
The evidence is that there are some dents to interior walls at least. I note the pre-let inspection report also records there was a dent to a wall in the bedroom at the start of the tenancy. On balance I consider this claim has not been established. Even if the damage was caused during the tenancy, I consider it would be fair wear and tear in the context of a tenancy running over one decade. Claim 5 - Rent to end of notice period (18 October 2024)
The landlord’s position is that the tenant’s last rent payment was on 1 October 2024, which paid rent up to the 7 th . At the start of the tenancy, the tenant paid rent two weeks in advance, but then made the next payment two weeks later, then making payments weekly there after. The landlord advised me that the tenant was a very consistent and regular payer of her rent. The landlord states that WINZ started payments on 17 th of July, and tenant was always one week in advance. The landlord seeks rent payment to 18 October 2024.
The tenant’s position is that she was two weeks in advance, and made the last payment on 9 October 2024, so was up to date, if not ahead with her rent payments. Analysis
I begin by addressing the question of what the last day of the tenancy was.
The tenant terminated the tenancy by text message notice on 27 September 2024, recording that the final date of the tenancy would be 13 October. The tenant states she moved out on 12 October.
The tenancy agreement does not record a minimum notice period for ending the tenancy, which means that the obligations that arise will be that found in the RTA. At the time the tenant gave notice, the RTA required that the tenant give 28 days notice to end a periodic tenancy. In January 2025, parliament reduced that to 21 days, but at the time the tenancy came to an end, the minimum notice period was 28 days. Therefore, strictly speaking, the tenant would be liable for rent until 25 October 2024.
In this case the landlord only seeks rent payments to 18 October 2024, which of course is a better outcome for the tenant.
The next issue is when the rent was paid to. As discussed at the hearing, the evidence is that at the start of the tenancy, the rent was paid two weeks in advance, and then from 17 July 2013, the payments commenced weekly there after. On that basis, the rent was only one week in advance, not the two weeks as initially believed to be the case by the tenant.
There is then a dispute between the parties as to when the last rent payment was made, the landlord’s position is that it was 1 October 2024, whereas the tenant considers the last payment was on 9 October 2024.
I accept that the last payment was likely to have been made on 1 October 2024, because that is shown on the landlord’s bank statements. The landlord’s bank statement shows regular payments being made by WINZ with the final payment on 1 October 2024. The statement goes to the end of October, and there is no subsequent payment shown.
I note the District Court decision of Me and My House Property Management Limited v Christine Scott [2022] NZDC 1585. In that case there was a dispute between the parties as to when a rent payment was made. The Court said: Where the evidence establishes that the rent has not been received by the landlord, the Tribunal is in error to find that the rent was paid. It is a fundamental obligation on the tenant to pay the landlord. Where a landlord can establish, as the appellant has, that the rent has not been received, then the tenant is responsible for ensuring that the payment is received. A payment cannot be said to have been made if it has not been received.
The result must be that I find the rent was paid on 1 October 2024, and therefore the rent was paid until 7 October 2024.
That means the tenant owes the landlord rent between 8 October 2024 and the claimed date of 18 October 2024, being a further 11 days of rent, being $550.00.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Rent overpayment

As set out above, the tenant considered that she had overpaid the rent, but for the reasons as I have explained, I am satisfied that the evidence shows the rent to have been in arrears (behind) at the end of the tenancy. Claim 2 – Unlawful entry / quiet enjoyment.
The tenant states that the landlords husband started repainting the house, a few months before she moved out. The tenant states that on some days the landlord would not arrive until 11am, and other days he would be there until 6:00 - 6:30pm. The tenant describes a difficult situation where she had a bereavement and on return from the funeral, the landlord was there doing work, but she accepts that she did not ask that they leave.
The tenant considers that during the work there was poor notice given, often just a text message.
The landlord agrees that they were there for 12 days, undertaking preparation for painting of the house. The landlord stated that it was not easy to get access to the premises with the tenant because on some occasions, she was not available.
The landlord agrees that the notice would be ad hoc at times, like texting to ask if they could come around, but the landlord confirmed they would only attend if the tenant agreed. Analysis
The RTA requires that landlords maintain the tenancy, and it must logically follow that the landlord would need to be present at the tenancy for that maintenance to occur. In this case, the landlord was undertaking maintenance work in order to have the house painted, which is very ordinary maintenance in a dwelling. I note here that the tenancy is over one decade long, it would be unsurprising that during that period of time significant work like repainting was not undertaken. So the fact of the landlord, needing to attend the house in order to do that work, is expected.
I note here that one of the concerns raised by the tenant at the hearing today, was that the landlord was not adequately maintaining the tenancy, but that is not consistent with the claim around the repainting work.
A further issue for the tenant was around notice. In fact, if a landlord wishes to attend the tenancy to do work outside of the dwelling, strictly the landlord does not need to give the tenant notice at all. The landlord only needs to give notice to enter the dwelling. But that aside, in this case, it seems that the landlord did give notice by text message, or other such means, before coming around. The landlord explained that on occasions, the tenant did not wish to be intruded upon, and so they did not go. But what I have not seen is evidence that the landlord had breached any obligations around coming to the property to undertake maintenance.
I recognise, however, that undertaking 12 days of preparation for painting, would have been intrusive to a reasonable tenant. The tenant pays rent for the premises, and has a statutory right of quiet enjoyment. While the attendances at the premises were entirely lawful, they would have reduced the amenity, the tenant had out of her premises, and it is fair that she be compensated for that. The compensation would be a kin to a rent reduction to recognise that the tenant was not getting the quiet and peaceful environment, she was entitled to receive.
It is impossible to scientifically work out what level of compensation would be correct, the best I can do is to step back and make an assessment based on the likely inconvenience for the tenant, taking into account the level of rent she would pay. The rent paid for this tenancy was very low, at $350 per week. I consider that compensation of $200 for loss of amenity would be fair, and that is ordered. Claim 3 – Failure to maintain
The tenant says that when she was there, the landlord did not do maintenance. The tenant says that she did not pressure the landlord to do anything, but the landlord would otherwise not maintain the premises. The tenant considered the fireplace should have been replaced sooner, and further the landlord did not have the chimney swept. The tenant considers that the landlord did not clear out a drain on the premises, or remove rubbish that was on the premises at the start of the tenancy. The tenant said that she could not have a smoke alarm because of smoke coming from the fireplace.
I asked the tenant if she gave the landlord any notice to repair or maintain any of the issues at the tenancy. The tenant only referred to the damage to the back porch panel.
The tenant said that the fireplace was old and needed replacement.
The parties agreed that the fireplace was replaced about a year before the end of the tenancy.
In response, the landlord agrees that the tenant arranged the chimney sweep, but the landlord paid for it.
The landlord states the fireplace was a good fireplace, and it was regularly serviced. The landlord questions if there was wet wood used to explain why it would smoke. Analysis
The RTA requires that the landlord maintain the premises. In my assessment, the tenant has not proven that the landlord did not maintain the premises, taking into account the age and character of the dwelling.
The tenant’s position was very clear, that the landlord did not maintain the premises at all over her time there. I do not agree with that at all. As above, the landlord undertook a significant repainting exercise. The landlord’s evidence was she would service the fireplace annually. During the tenancy, the landlord also replaced the fireplace. It may well be that the landlord did much more than that, but those are three examples of significant maintenance work that was undertaken.
It may be that the tenant considered that further maintenance was needed, but she has acknowledged that she did not issue a notice to the landlord requiring that the landlord to do that work. If notice was given, and the tenant did not consider that the landlord complied, then the tenant could have come to the Tenancy Tribunal and various orders, including work orders requiring the work to be done, could be made.
But overall, I cannot see any breach for which orders are required. Claim 4 – Bond release
The tenant requested release of her bond back to her. As I explained at the hearing, the bond gets released depending on the parties’ respective success in their claims.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5150153 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$550.00		Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$150.00		Cleaning
Cladding repair	$200.00		Cladding repair
Rent arrears	$550.00		Rent arrears
Compensation: Loss of amenity		$150.00	Loss of amenity
Total award	$1,450.00	$150.00
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Claims and awards for application 5150153 — net $500.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Cladding repair

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cladding repair

Rent arrears

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Compensation: Loss of amenity

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Loss of amenity

Total award

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal

Order

Suzanne Lee Smith must pay Karen Herbert $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $800.00 (3301362-011) to Karen Herbert immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has ended, but disputes have arisen in relation to matters at or near the end of the tenancy.

BACKGROUND

This is a tenancy of long duration, commencing on 3 July 2013.
The tenant terminated the tenancy by text message notice on 27 September 2024, recording that the final date of the tenancy would be 13 October. The tenant states she moved out on 12 October.
Disputes arose around cleaning and rubbish removal at the end of the tenancy, and whether further rent was due. The tenant has claimed for various matters around maintenance work at the tenancy.
A hearing was convened in Masterton today, 30 April 2025, with both parties appearing.

WITNESS EVIDENCE

Sean Smith

Mr Smith is the tenant’s son, and attended and gave evidence for the tenant. I summarise that evidence as follows: a. The burn pile for the house was behind the house. b. The original fence was tin. c. The gardens were ‘not left in a mess’. d. Mr Smith saw the tenant cleaning the house at the end of the tenancy. e. The rubbish was burnt on site because of the pending need to return the tenancy to the landlord. f. The landlords photographs are largely correct, although there were some photographs the witness did not consider correctly represented the situation at the end of the tenancy. Dylan Smith
Dylan Smith is another son of the tenant, and also attended to give evidence. Again I summarise that as follows: a. Mr Smith confirmed that he assisted with tidying up the premises, and burned some of the wood on site. b. A number of people assisted with getting the house ready to return to the landlord. c. There were some paua shells left the premises, perhaps around 50. d. Mr Smith disputes that some of the items like the wood shown in the landlords photograph, were left on the premises by them

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rubbish removal and dumping fee b. House cleaning c. Repairing the cladding on porch d. Repair to doors and wall e. Rent to end of notice period (18 October 2024)
The tenant confirmed her claims are as follows: a. Bond refund b. Rent overpayment c. Unlawful entry and quiet enjoyment d. Maintenance

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Rubbish removal and dump fees

The landlord’s position is that there was extensive rubbish left on the premises at the end of the tenancy that needed to be removed and dumped. That included wood that was taken off-site and disposed of (burnt). There was a chicken coop that needed to be removed. The landlord claims for time in removing the rubbish being 7.5 hours, plus the dump fees. The landlord claims a total $650.
The tenant states that she wanted to do the work herself, but the landlord went ahead and did the work anyway.
The tenant submits that some of the items shown in the photograph were already on the tenancy when she rented it, or washed there from a drain, such as the iron, tyres, drums and pots. The tenant accepts that the pallets and chairs were hers, as were the paua shells left by the tenant. The tenant considers that she did leave some ‘good things’ on the premises, which the landlord has kept. The tenant considers that the landlord should have said what needed to be removed so she could have done that work.
In conclusion the landlord said that the tenant did not give her an opportunity to meet with her at the end of the tenancy. The landlord considers that there were no items of value left on the premises when the tenant vacated the premises. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
When I consider the photographs provided, I do not consider that the tenant did return the premises reasonably clean and tidy. While there is a dispute between the parties as to the ownership of some of the items left, the tenant has nevertheless accepted at the hearing that some of the items that were described by the landlord, were hers, for example the old chairs, pallets and paua shells.
Further I note a range of items the tenant accepts that she left as recorded in a written document on the file from the tenant, that includes: a. Kitchen cabinet b. Table and shelf in the sun room c. Bin with fertiliser d. Plastic worm farm e. Fish pond f. Deck g. Wood box h. Planter boxes i. Pot plants j. Wooden table and three chairs k. 6 plastic pallets and 3 wooden pallets
It is not a particularly uncommon situation that there is a difference of opinion as to whether certain items would be classed as rubbish, but the scheme of the act is that when the tenant leaves the premises, they need to take all of their belongings, and dispose of the rubbish. To put it another way, they should leave the tenancy largely as they found it.
The tenant must be responsible for any costs incurred by the landlord, in removing the rubbish or items that were left by her, and that can include compensating the landlord for their own reasonable time in doing so.
There is, however, a dispute between the parties, as to responsibility for some of the items that the landlord needed to dispose of, in particular, corrugated iron, and large items of wood. In relation to those items, the tenant states that the corrugated iron was a part of the old fence, and that the wood was there when she moved in. I will accept the tenancy evidence that those items were there on the tenancy when she first rented the premises, so she could not reasonably be liable for the costs and disposing of them.
But overall, I don’t consider that would have added significantly to the rubbish disposal costs for the landlord. The landlord has claimed $650, but I consider a fair outcome would be to reduce the cost by $100, to take account of the items on the section, that I is not the tenant’s responsibility. I consider an order of $550 would be reasonable for the tip, fees, and time in disposing of the other items left by the tenant.
I conclude by noting that a further concern raised by the tenant is that she was not told by the landlord that she needed to remove the items that are the subject of this claim, and undertake cleaning, which is the subject of the next claim. The law is clear that the obligation is on the tenant to remove all rubbish and return the premises reasonably clean and tidy. There is strictly no legal obligation on the landlord to tell the tenant that the premises do not meet that standard, or to give the tenant another opportunity to return and get the work done. Once the tenancy comes to an end, the obligation falls squarely on the tenant to ensure the premises are reasonably clean and tidy, and if they are not, then the tenant has breached their obligation, and the claim can be ordered against them. Claim 2 – House cleaning
The landlord’s position is that the premises were not clean at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states that they paid the incoming tenant to do 6 hours cleaning, but they were not happy with the standard of that cleaning so did further cleaning. The landlord claims 6 hours at $50.00.
In response, the tenant says that she moved out of the premises on 12 October, and believes that the house was returned to the landlord clean. The tenant states that she had wiped down the surfaces. The tenant said that it was only on 24 October that the landlord responded to her, and said it was unreasonable.
The tenant considers that the mould is the result of a lack of maintenance at the premises from having no putty in the windows.
The tenant considers that the landlord has applied ‘filters’ to the photographs, and therefore the photographs are not an accurate reflection of the inside of the dwelling.
The landlord disputes that the photographs have been doctored in any way. Analysis
I have set out the relevant legal considerations above, that is, at the end of the tenancy. The tenant must return the premises to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
These claims are always difficult, because there are frequently differing opinions between an outgoing tenant, and the landlord, as to whether the premises are reasonably clean. Ultimately, however, the obligation to prove the claim is on the landlord, it is the landlord who must show that the premises are not reasonably clean, and if the landlord did not establish that, then the claim would be dismissed. Invariably, these sorts of claims are determined based on the photographic evidence, which allows the Tribunal to make its own determination as to whether the cleaning was a reasonable level.
Having reviewed the evidence, particularly the photographs, I conclude that this claim has been established but only as it relates to what appears to be mould or similar to an interior wall. The tenant has not convinced me that that would simply have arisen from no putty in the windows. I consider a fair level of compensation for cleaning those walls and ceiling would be $150.
Otherwise I am not persuaded that the remainder of the tenancy was unclean. I can see no reason to prefer the landlord’s oral evidence over the tenants.
I therefore award $150 for cleaning the walls and ceiling. Claim 3 – Cladding repairs
The landlord has claimed $200.00 for the repair of cladding broken on the back porch.
The tenant says that she had reported the broken panel, but the damage occurred when she tripped on her gumboots, falling onto the panel breaking it. Analysis
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
While there is a difference of opinion between the parties as to how the damage occurred, even accepting the description from the tenant, I would find the tenant is liable for the damage. There is no dispute between the parties that the damage occurred during the tenancy, which means that the tenant must prove the damage was not careless or intentional damage. In my assessment, if a person tripped over on gumboots, landing on panelling, damaging it, it would be careless damage, which means the tenant is liable for the repairs.
The landlord has claimed $200 to repair the panel. That seems reasonable to me, I am confident that if the landlord were to have the panel commercially repaired, it would be well over that amount, and therefore I order the claim in full. Claim 4 – Repairs to doors and walls
The landlord states there was damage to bedroom doors and walls. The landlord seeks a nominal charge of $200.00 toward the repairs.
The tenant states that one door in the lounge was previously damaged, and there was other damage to the premises. However the tenant agrees that she did put one dent in the bathroom door where she ‘knocked it’. The tenant considers the bedroom was previously damaged. The tenant considers there were a couple of dents in the walls, but noting she had been there for 11 years. The tenant considers this is a wear and tear situation. Analysis
The evidence is that there are some dents to interior walls at least. I note the pre-let inspection report also records there was a dent to a wall in the bedroom at the start of the tenancy. On balance I consider this claim has not been established. Even if the damage was caused during the tenancy, I consider it would be fair wear and tear in the context of a tenancy running over one decade. Claim 5 - Rent to end of notice period (18 October 2024)
The landlord’s position is that the tenant’s last rent payment was on 1 October 2024, which paid rent up to the 7 th . At the start of the tenancy, the tenant paid rent two weeks in advance, but then made the next payment two weeks later, then making payments weekly there after. The landlord advised me that the tenant was a very consistent and regular payer of her rent. The landlord states that WINZ started payments on 17 th of July, and tenant was always one week in advance. The landlord seeks rent payment to 18 October 2024.
The tenant’s position is that she was two weeks in advance, and made the last payment on 9 October 2024, so was up to date, if not ahead with her rent payments. Analysis
I begin by addressing the question of what the last day of the tenancy was.
The tenant terminated the tenancy by text message notice on 27 September 2024, recording that the final date of the tenancy would be 13 October. The tenant states she moved out on 12 October.
The tenancy agreement does not record a minimum notice period for ending the tenancy, which means that the obligations that arise will be that found in the RTA. At the time the tenant gave notice, the RTA required that the tenant give 28 days notice to end a periodic tenancy. In January 2025, parliament reduced that to 21 days, but at the time the tenancy came to an end, the minimum notice period was 28 days. Therefore, strictly speaking, the tenant would be liable for rent until 25 October 2024.
In this case the landlord only seeks rent payments to 18 October 2024, which of course is a better outcome for the tenant.
The next issue is when the rent was paid to. As discussed at the hearing, the evidence is that at the start of the tenancy, the rent was paid two weeks in advance, and then from 17 July 2013, the payments commenced weekly there after. On that basis, the rent was only one week in advance, not the two weeks as initially believed to be the case by the tenant.
There is then a dispute between the parties as to when the last rent payment was made, the landlord’s position is that it was 1 October 2024, whereas the tenant considers the last payment was on 9 October 2024.
I accept that the last payment was likely to have been made on 1 October 2024, because that is shown on the landlord’s bank statements. The landlord’s bank statement shows regular payments being made by WINZ with the final payment on 1 October 2024. The statement goes to the end of October, and there is no subsequent payment shown.
I note the District Court decision of Me and My House Property Management Limited v Christine Scott [2022] NZDC 1585. In that case there was a dispute between the parties as to when a rent payment was made. The Court said: Where the evidence establishes that the rent has not been received by the landlord, the Tribunal is in error to find that the rent was paid. It is a fundamental obligation on the tenant to pay the landlord. Where a landlord can establish, as the appellant has, that the rent has not been received, then the tenant is responsible for ensuring that the payment is received. A payment cannot be said to have been made if it has not been received.
The result must be that I find the rent was paid on 1 October 2024, and therefore the rent was paid until 7 October 2024.
That means the tenant owes the landlord rent between 8 October 2024 and the claimed date of 18 October 2024, being a further 11 days of rent, being $550.00.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Claim 1 – Rent overpayment

As set out above, the tenant considered that she had overpaid the rent, but for the reasons as I have explained, I am satisfied that the evidence shows the rent to have been in arrears (behind) at the end of the tenancy. Claim 2 – Unlawful entry / quiet enjoyment.
The tenant states that the landlords husband started repainting the house, a few months before she moved out. The tenant states that on some days the landlord would not arrive until 11am, and other days he would be there until 6:00 - 6:30pm. The tenant describes a difficult situation where she had a bereavement and on return from the funeral, the landlord was there doing work, but she accepts that she did not ask that they leave.
The tenant considers that during the work there was poor notice given, often just a text message.
The landlord agrees that they were there for 12 days, undertaking preparation for painting of the house. The landlord stated that it was not easy to get access to the premises with the tenant because on some occasions, she was not available.
The landlord agrees that the notice would be ad hoc at times, like texting to ask if they could come around, but the landlord confirmed they would only attend if the tenant agreed. Analysis
The RTA requires that landlords maintain the tenancy, and it must logically follow that the landlord would need to be present at the tenancy for that maintenance to occur. In this case, the landlord was undertaking maintenance work in order to have the house painted, which is very ordinary maintenance in a dwelling. I note here that the tenancy is over one decade long, it would be unsurprising that during that period of time significant work like repainting was not undertaken. So the fact of the landlord, needing to attend the house in order to do that work, is expected.
I note here that one of the concerns raised by the tenant at the hearing today, was that the landlord was not adequately maintaining the tenancy, but that is not consistent with the claim around the repainting work.
A further issue for the tenant was around notice. In fact, if a landlord wishes to attend the tenancy to do work outside of the dwelling, strictly the landlord does not need to give the tenant notice at all. The landlord only needs to give notice to enter the dwelling. But that aside, in this case, it seems that the landlord did give notice by text message, or other such means, before coming around. The landlord explained that on occasions, the tenant did not wish to be intruded upon, and so they did not go. But what I have not seen is evidence that the landlord had breached any obligations around coming to the property to undertake maintenance.
I recognise, however, that undertaking 12 days of preparation for painting, would have been intrusive to a reasonable tenant. The tenant pays rent for the premises, and has a statutory right of quiet enjoyment. While the attendances at the premises were entirely lawful, they would have reduced the amenity, the tenant had out of her premises, and it is fair that she be compensated for that. The compensation would be a kin to a rent reduction to recognise that the tenant was not getting the quiet and peaceful environment, she was entitled to receive.
It is impossible to scientifically work out what level of compensation would be correct, the best I can do is to step back and make an assessment based on the likely inconvenience for the tenant, taking into account the level of rent she would pay. The rent paid for this tenancy was very low, at $350 per week. I consider that compensation of $200 for loss of amenity would be fair, and that is ordered. Claim 3 – Failure to maintain
The tenant says that when she was there, the landlord did not do maintenance. The tenant says that she did not pressure the landlord to do anything, but the landlord would otherwise not maintain the premises. The tenant considered the fireplace should have been replaced sooner, and further the landlord did not have the chimney swept. The tenant considers that the landlord did not clear out a drain on the premises, or remove rubbish that was on the premises at the start of the tenancy. The tenant said that she could not have a smoke alarm because of smoke coming from the fireplace.
I asked the tenant if she gave the landlord any notice to repair or maintain any of the issues at the tenancy. The tenant only referred to the damage to the back porch panel.
The tenant said that the fireplace was old and needed replacement.
The parties agreed that the fireplace was replaced about a year before the end of the tenancy.
In response, the landlord agrees that the tenant arranged the chimney sweep, but the landlord paid for it.
The landlord states the fireplace was a good fireplace, and it was regularly serviced. The landlord questions if there was wet wood used to explain why it would smoke. Analysis
The RTA requires that the landlord maintain the premises. In my assessment, the tenant has not proven that the landlord did not maintain the premises, taking into account the age and character of the dwelling.
The tenant’s position was very clear, that the landlord did not maintain the premises at all over her time there. I do not agree with that at all. As above, the landlord undertook a significant repainting exercise. The landlord’s evidence was she would service the fireplace annually. During the tenancy, the landlord also replaced the fireplace. It may well be that the landlord did much more than that, but those are three examples of significant maintenance work that was undertaken.
It may be that the tenant considered that further maintenance was needed, but she has acknowledged that she did not issue a notice to the landlord requiring that the landlord to do that work. If notice was given, and the tenant did not consider that the landlord complied, then the tenant could have come to the Tenancy Tribunal and various orders, including work orders requiring the work to be done, could be made.
But overall, I cannot see any breach for which orders are required. Claim 4 – Bond release
The tenant requested release of her bond back to her. As I explained at the hearing, the bond gets released depending on the parties’ respective success in their claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5150153 — Rent arrears at 41 Lincoln Road, Carterton, Carterton 5713

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5150153 — Rent arrears at 41 Lincoln Road, Carterton, Carterton 5713

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

WITNESS EVIDENCE

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

WITNESS EVIDENCE

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions