What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5153354?

The tribunal order states: Kristian Pilgrim must pay Beaven Realty Limited - As Agent For Xian Jian Chew

How much money was awarded in case 5153354?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.59 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $662.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153354?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11689535-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5153354?

The tribunal order states: Kristian Pilgrim must pay Beaven Realty Limited - As Agent For Xian Jian Chew

How much money was awarded in case 5153354?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.59 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $662.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153354?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11689535-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Glen Almond Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153354 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153354 — net $1,470.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 January 2025	$662.86	Rent arrears to 31 January 2025
Cleaning property and packing up goods in kitchen, lounge, laundry and downstairs area	$500.00	Cleaning property and packing up goods in kitchen, lounge, laundry and downstairs area
Carpet Cleaning	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$230.59	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,470.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,470.45

Order

Kristian Pilgrim must pay Beaven Realty Limited - As Agent For Xian Jian Chew $1,470.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for remotes, bulbs, glass, smoke alarm and door are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord seeks various items of compensation following the end of the tenancy which began on 5 October 2019 and ended when the bailiff secured the property on 31 January 2025.
At the hearing I afforded the landlord an opportunity to have a small adjournment to seek an email breakdown of the costs incurred by their tradesperson in invoices, but this was declined. End of tenancy obligations
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. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning costs – General cleaning, packing items and carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks reimbursement for general cleaning and packing up of items of the tenant.
The landlord seeks $731.50. For this sum, the landlord says that a professional property maintenance team packed up parts of the tenant’s items in the kitchen, the bathroom, the laundry and downstairs at the property (the tenant returned and packed up the items in the other rooms). They also wiped the kitchen including in drawers and wiped down the bathroom. They cleaned around window joinery and vacuumed each room (3-bedroom home). The invoice also identifies that the cleaning included cleaning all surfaces, inside and on top of cupboards and wiping over all joinery and window reveals.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available - particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and not all items removed by the tenant because the tenant’s items remained throughout the home after it was secured by the bailiff. I accept that once items had been removed the property would have needed a general clean to make it reasonably clean and tidy.
Based on the photographs available, the size of the property, and the description of the work done (including the nature of the items left in the rooms dealt with by the professionals) I award the landlord $500 for the cleaning and packing up of the items as identified and shown in photographs. I am not satisfied that the landlord sufficiently proved that the joinery/window reveals needed wiping to the extent claimed or that the tenant should pay for the wiping of the tops of cupboards or that the amount of items the professionals packed away reasonably required the amount of time claimed.
$500 gives the landlord just over 12 hours (at the $35 per hour as claimed) (plus GST) to pack up the goods and clean. I consider this to be sufficient time based on the photographs provided.
The landlord also claims costs of carpet cleaning.
The sum claimed for carpet cleaning relates to the whole of the property. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that there were stains left in the lounge which the landlord says had new carpet at the start of the tenancy. Light stains remained in photographs after the carpet cleaners had been in, thereby demonstrating earlier heavier staining – Heavy stains are also recorded on the invoice. The landlord also provided photographs of a stain in a bedroom but there was no pre-tenancy inspection or photographs, so I do not know the extent to which there was such staining here prior to the tenancy starting.
On this basis, I award the landlord $50 towards carpet cleaning. Locks
The bailiff was used to secure the property. Locks therefore were changed, and I accept this to be a reasonable and necessary step.
The sum ordered of $230.59 is proven.
The landlord also claims for garage remotes. I decline to make an award in respect of this. I cannot be sufficiently certain how much the landlord has incurred in the reprogramming of remotes as it is not clear from the invoice provided (the invoice is mixed with another claim and an item that does not form part of the claim). I also note that the claim (and invoice details) are for the replacement of two remotes but the landlord is only able to sufficiently prove one remote being provided. The Tribunal cannot guess the loss to the landlord. This claim for the garage remotes is therefore dismissed. Bulbs
The landlord says about 5 bulbs needed replacing and that one of the bulbs was a larger fluorescent light.
There was no ingoing inspection to show all lights were working at the start of the tenancy and no inspection recording the bulbs that are said to be not working.
I find the landlord’s evidence that “about” 5 bulbs were not working is not sufficiently particular to establish the claim. Further, the claim for the florescent light is dismissed because I find that this is a specialist bulb.
Prior decisions of the Tribunal have awarded costs standard incandescent lightbulbs but have not consistently awarded costs for longer-lasting or specialist lightbulbs. Arguably, such lightbulbs could be regarded as a maintenance item which is the responsibility of the landlord (see [2025] NZTT 4999988, 4986288 for an award not being made for a LED light bulb and [2024] NZTT 4730290 for an award not being made for a heat lamp bulb).
In this instance while the florescent light bulb may have failed during the tenancy, I find it reasonable that the florescent bulb failed due to wear and tear that occurred prior to the tenancy as well as during the tenancy (the landlord could not say how old the bulb was and that it could be original in a home which is decades old). The tenant is not liable to replace it.
Further, and in any event, the claim for the bulbs is invoiced but does not specify the nature or number of bulbs and because the invoice also deals with damage to glass (which is not proven see below) and another item which is not part of the claim, I cannot be sufficiently certain how much the landlord has incurred in the replacement of the bulbs in any event. The Tribunal cannot guess.
This claim is dismissed. Damage
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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I must take into account have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant factors to be taken into account. Broken glass
The landlord says the glass in a panel of the ranch slider was broken but there is no probative evidence of the condition of that glass at the start of the tenancy (photograph or inspection report). While a single photograph was provided as evidence which was taken at the end of the tenancy it has been taken from a great distance away from outside and I cannot see the alleged damage.
Even if I was satisfied the landlord had established damage for which the tenant is liable, I also cannot be sufficiently certain how much loss the landlord has incurred in respect of the alleged broken panel because as it is not clear from the invoice provided which is mixed with other items (which include items that are not proven or part of the claim).
This claim is dismissed. Smoke alarm
The landlord says a smoke alarm is damaged.
On the basis of the evidence before me I cannot be satisfied that this is anything other than fair wear and tear and this is dismissed. Holes in bedroom door
The landlord says that the bedroom original hollow door had small holes potentially caused by the moving of furniture. They cannot be seen from the photograph provided as the landlord says that the poster on it is covering the holes. This means I cannot see the alleged damage. There is also no probative evidence of the condition of the door at the start of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has sufficiently proven that such damage occurred during the course of the tenancy or able to prove the condition of the door at the start of the tenancy. Further, and in any event, even if proven the landlord says the damage seems to be of the nature that it would have potentially been knocked by furniture. This would most likely be careless damage for which insurance details would need to be provided (and were not).
Further, even if I was satisfied the landlord had established damages for which the tenant is liable, I am also unable to sufficiently identify the loss incurred from the invoice provided because it also includes a claim for light bulbs which has been dismissed.
This claim is dismissed. Rent claim
The landlord seeks rent from 24 January 2025 to 8 February 2025. A previous Tribunal order awarded possession and rent to 23 January 2025. The landlord did not get possession of the property until 31 January 2025 when the bailiff enabled this. I find that rent is payable to this date and so I have ordered this.
I decline to award any further sums in relation to rent. The landlord had possession from 31 January 2025.
While the tenant’s goods may have remained on the property until 8 February 2025 this was on the basis of an agreement between the landlord and the tenant. There was no agreement or understanding that he would continue to be liable for the rent for this period.
In certain situations, the RTA provides that the landlord may require the tenant to pay the landlord’s actual and reasonable costs arising out of the storage of goods. However, I am not satisfied that any actual costs are proven as being incurred here. Filing fee and suppression
The landlord has had some success, so I award the filing fee.
Name suppression is not sought so I do not need to consider this.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5153354 — net $1,470.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 January 2025	$662.86	Rent arrears to 31 January 2025
Cleaning property and packing up goods in kitchen, lounge, laundry and downstairs area	$500.00	Cleaning property and packing up goods in kitchen, lounge, laundry and downstairs area
Carpet Cleaning	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$230.59	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,470.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,470.45

Order

Kristian Pilgrim must pay Beaven Realty Limited - As Agent For Xian Jian Chew $1,470.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for remotes, bulbs, glass, smoke alarm and door are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord seeks various items of compensation following the end of the tenancy which began on 5 October 2019 and ended when the bailiff secured the property on 31 January 2025.
At the hearing I afforded the landlord an opportunity to have a small adjournment to seek an email breakdown of the costs incurred by their tradesperson in invoices, but this was declined. End of tenancy obligations
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. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning costs – General cleaning, packing items and carpet cleaning
The landlord seeks reimbursement for general cleaning and packing up of items of the tenant.
The landlord seeks $731.50. For this sum, the landlord says that a professional property maintenance team packed up parts of the tenant’s items in the kitchen, the bathroom, the laundry and downstairs at the property (the tenant returned and packed up the items in the other rooms). They also wiped the kitchen including in drawers and wiped down the bathroom. They cleaned around window joinery and vacuumed each room (3-bedroom home). The invoice also identifies that the cleaning included cleaning all surfaces, inside and on top of cupboards and wiping over all joinery and window reveals.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available - particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and not all items removed by the tenant because the tenant’s items remained throughout the home after it was secured by the bailiff. I accept that once items had been removed the property would have needed a general clean to make it reasonably clean and tidy.
Based on the photographs available, the size of the property, and the description of the work done (including the nature of the items left in the rooms dealt with by the professionals) I award the landlord $500 for the cleaning and packing up of the items as identified and shown in photographs. I am not satisfied that the landlord sufficiently proved that the joinery/window reveals needed wiping to the extent claimed or that the tenant should pay for the wiping of the tops of cupboards or that the amount of items the professionals packed away reasonably required the amount of time claimed.
$500 gives the landlord just over 12 hours (at the $35 per hour as claimed) (plus GST) to pack up the goods and clean. I consider this to be sufficient time based on the photographs provided.
The landlord also claims costs of carpet cleaning.
The sum claimed for carpet cleaning relates to the whole of the property. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that there were stains left in the lounge which the landlord says had new carpet at the start of the tenancy. Light stains remained in photographs after the carpet cleaners had been in, thereby demonstrating earlier heavier staining – Heavy stains are also recorded on the invoice. The landlord also provided photographs of a stain in a bedroom but there was no pre-tenancy inspection or photographs, so I do not know the extent to which there was such staining here prior to the tenancy starting.
On this basis, I award the landlord $50 towards carpet cleaning. Locks
The bailiff was used to secure the property. Locks therefore were changed, and I accept this to be a reasonable and necessary step.
The sum ordered of $230.59 is proven.
The landlord also claims for garage remotes. I decline to make an award in respect of this. I cannot be sufficiently certain how much the landlord has incurred in the reprogramming of remotes as it is not clear from the invoice provided (the invoice is mixed with another claim and an item that does not form part of the claim). I also note that the claim (and invoice details) are for the replacement of two remotes but the landlord is only able to sufficiently prove one remote being provided. The Tribunal cannot guess the loss to the landlord. This claim for the garage remotes is therefore dismissed. Bulbs
The landlord says about 5 bulbs needed replacing and that one of the bulbs was a larger fluorescent light.
There was no ingoing inspection to show all lights were working at the start of the tenancy and no inspection recording the bulbs that are said to be not working.
I find the landlord’s evidence that “about” 5 bulbs were not working is not sufficiently particular to establish the claim. Further, the claim for the florescent light is dismissed because I find that this is a specialist bulb.
Prior decisions of the Tribunal have awarded costs standard incandescent lightbulbs but have not consistently awarded costs for longer-lasting or specialist lightbulbs. Arguably, such lightbulbs could be regarded as a maintenance item which is the responsibility of the landlord (see [2025] NZTT 4999988, 4986288 for an award not being made for a LED light bulb and [2024] NZTT 4730290 for an award not being made for a heat lamp bulb).
In this instance while the florescent light bulb may have failed during the tenancy, I find it reasonable that the florescent bulb failed due to wear and tear that occurred prior to the tenancy as well as during the tenancy (the landlord could not say how old the bulb was and that it could be original in a home which is decades old). The tenant is not liable to replace it.
Further, and in any event, the claim for the bulbs is invoiced but does not specify the nature or number of bulbs and because the invoice also deals with damage to glass (which is not proven see below) and another item which is not part of the claim, I cannot be sufficiently certain how much the landlord has incurred in the replacement of the bulbs in any event. The Tribunal cannot guess.
This claim is dismissed. Damage
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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I must take into account have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant factors to be taken into account. Broken glass
The landlord says the glass in a panel of the ranch slider was broken but there is no probative evidence of the condition of that glass at the start of the tenancy (photograph or inspection report). While a single photograph was provided as evidence which was taken at the end of the tenancy it has been taken from a great distance away from outside and I cannot see the alleged damage.
Even if I was satisfied the landlord had established damage for which the tenant is liable, I also cannot be sufficiently certain how much loss the landlord has incurred in respect of the alleged broken panel because as it is not clear from the invoice provided which is mixed with other items (which include items that are not proven or part of the claim).
This claim is dismissed. Smoke alarm
The landlord says a smoke alarm is damaged.
On the basis of the evidence before me I cannot be satisfied that this is anything other than fair wear and tear and this is dismissed. Holes in bedroom door
The landlord says that the bedroom original hollow door had small holes potentially caused by the moving of furniture. They cannot be seen from the photograph provided as the landlord says that the poster on it is covering the holes. This means I cannot see the alleged damage. There is also no probative evidence of the condition of the door at the start of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has sufficiently proven that such damage occurred during the course of the tenancy or able to prove the condition of the door at the start of the tenancy. Further, and in any event, even if proven the landlord says the damage seems to be of the nature that it would have potentially been knocked by furniture. This would most likely be careless damage for which insurance details would need to be provided (and were not).
Further, even if I was satisfied the landlord had established damages for which the tenant is liable, I am also unable to sufficiently identify the loss incurred from the invoice provided because it also includes a claim for light bulbs which has been dismissed.
This claim is dismissed. Rent claim
The landlord seeks rent from 24 January 2025 to 8 February 2025. A previous Tribunal order awarded possession and rent to 23 January 2025. The landlord did not get possession of the property until 31 January 2025 when the bailiff enabled this. I find that rent is payable to this date and so I have ordered this.
I decline to award any further sums in relation to rent. The landlord had possession from 31 January 2025.
While the tenant’s goods may have remained on the property until 8 February 2025 this was on the basis of an agreement between the landlord and the tenant. There was no agreement or understanding that he would continue to be liable for the rent for this period.
In certain situations, the RTA provides that the landlord may require the tenant to pay the landlord’s actual and reasonable costs arising out of the storage of goods. However, I am not satisfied that any actual costs are proven as being incurred here. Filing fee and suppression
The landlord has had some success, so I award the filing fee.
Name suppression is not sought so I do not need to consider this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153354 — Rent arrears at 29 Glen Almond Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153354 — Rent arrears at 29 Glen Almond Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions