What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5154577?

The tribunal order states: Janie Martin must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,655.49

How much money was awarded in case 5154577?

Lawns and Garden Work: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $154.49 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,095.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154577?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154577?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11929643-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5154577?

The tribunal order states: Janie Martin must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,655.49

How much money was awarded in case 5154577?

Lawns and Garden Work: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $154.49 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,095.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154577?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154577?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11929643-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8A Franich Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5154577 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154577 — net $1,655.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to walls	$154.49	Repairs to walls
Lawns and garden work	$600.00	Lawns and garden work
Rubbish removal	$1,095.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,655.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,655.49

The landlord attended the hearing in person on 28 May 2025. The tenant did not attend due to childcare issues. The tenant indicated, however, that she wanted to provide the Tribunal with her views in writing. After hearing from the landlord, I called the tenant. I also received an email from the tenant during the hearing.

The tenancy ended on 20 November 2024. An exit inspection was performed on 28 November 2024. The landlord applied to the Tribunal on 3 February 2025 for the cost of repairs to the walls and doors, rubbish removal, and grass cutting.

At the hearing, the landlord withdrew a claim for repairs to a wall (shown in photograph 84 of the exit inspection report) totalling $64.77.

There was further damage to the walls shown in photographs 81 and 99-100 of Photograph 81 shows a large hole in an internal door. Photograph 100 shows a big hole in a wall. The cost of repair totals $154.49. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord claimed $1,641.20 for rubbish removal, $600.00 for grass cutting, and $306.17 for tyre removal.

The tenant did not dispute the claim for damage but did dispute the claim for rubbish removal, on the basis this included the cost of removing several large trees. The tenant says the trees were present when her tenancy started. At that stage there was no front boundary fence. The landlord left the trees in place after the fence was installed. The tenant also disputed the claim for removal of 17 tyres from the premises ($306.17). She said she knew nothing about there being any tyres.

The tyres are not visible in the exit inspection photographs. In the absence of any photographic evidence, I find it has not been established that there were tyres that needed to be removed.

The landlord said much of the rubbish removal cost was green waste from cutting the lawn, which looks very overgrown in the photographs. The tenant was concerned that the rubbish removal claim included the cost of removing several very large trees in the front garden. These were planted by a neighbour to create a boundary as there was no fence when she moved in. When a fence was installed, the trees were not removed. She advised her tenancy manager who indicated the landlord would deal with the issue.

It is unclear whether the rubbish removal cost included the cost of removal of the trees. They are visible in the exit photographs. The landlord was given time after the hearing to clarify the position. No further information has been provided. I anticipate that the landlord would be able to determine from their records whether the trees were removed, and any cost charged to the tenant. In my view, the evidential onus was on the landlord to establish that the trees were not included in the rubbish removal cost, for example, by contacting the tradesperson who performed the garden clearance.

The statement of final account gives a quantity of 10 for rubbish removal. I assume this means 10 cubic metres of rubbish had to be removed. It is difficult to estimate what portion of this quantity the trees might have been. They would certainly have been a significant part of the cost. It is necessary to make a summary adjustment. I reduce the rubbish removal cost by a third and award $1,095.00. I also award $600.00 for cutting the badly overgrown lawns.

If either party does have further evidence relevant to this issue, a rehearing application can be made.

The bond of $194.00 is refunded to the landlord. I have separately directed the Bond Centre to pay the bond to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154577 — net $1,655.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to walls	$154.49	Repairs to walls
Lawns and garden work	$600.00	Lawns and garden work
Rubbish removal	$1,095.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,655.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,655.49

Order

Janie Martin must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $1,655.49 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person on 28 May 2025. The tenant did not attend due to childcare issues. The tenant indicated, however, that she wanted to provide the Tribunal with her views in writing. After hearing from the landlord, I called the tenant. I also received an email from the tenant during the hearing.
The tenancy ended on 20 November 2024. An exit inspection was performed on 28 November 2024. The landlord applied to the Tribunal on 3 February 2025 for the cost of repairs to the walls and doors, rubbish removal, and grass cutting.
At the hearing, the landlord withdrew a claim for repairs to a wall (shown in photograph 84 of the exit inspection report) totalling $64.77.
There was further damage to the walls shown in photographs 81 and 99-100 of Photograph 81 shows a large hole in an internal door. Photograph 100 shows a big hole in a wall. The cost of repair totals $154.49. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claimed $1,641.20 for rubbish removal, $600.00 for grass cutting, and $306.17 for tyre removal.
The tenant did not dispute the claim for damage but did dispute the claim for rubbish removal, on the basis this included the cost of removing several large trees. The tenant says the trees were present when her tenancy started. At that stage there was no front boundary fence. The landlord left the trees in place after the fence was installed. The tenant also disputed the claim for removal of 17 tyres from the premises ($306.17). She said she knew nothing about there being any tyres.
The tyres are not visible in the exit inspection photographs. In the absence of any photographic evidence, I find it has not been established that there were tyres that needed to be removed.
The landlord said much of the rubbish removal cost was green waste from cutting the lawn, which looks very overgrown in the photographs. The tenant was concerned that the rubbish removal claim included the cost of removing several very large trees in the front garden. These were planted by a neighbour to create a boundary as there was no fence when she moved in. When a fence was installed, the trees were not removed. She advised her tenancy manager who indicated the landlord would deal with the issue.
It is unclear whether the rubbish removal cost included the cost of removal of the trees. They are visible in the exit photographs. The landlord was given time after the hearing to clarify the position. No further information has been provided. I anticipate that the landlord would be able to determine from their records whether the trees were removed, and any cost charged to the tenant. In my view, the evidential onus was on the landlord to establish that the trees were not included in the rubbish removal cost, for example, by contacting the tradesperson who performed the garden clearance.
The statement of final account gives a quantity of 10 for rubbish removal. I assume this means 10 cubic metres of rubbish had to be removed. It is difficult to estimate what portion of this quantity the trees might have been. They would certainly have been a significant part of the cost. It is necessary to make a summary adjustment. I reduce the rubbish removal cost by a third and award $1,095.00. I also award $600.00 for cutting the badly overgrown lawns.
If either party does have further evidence relevant to this issue, a rehearing application can be made.
The bond of $194.00 is refunded to the landlord. I have separately directed the Bond Centre to pay the bond to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154577 — Property damage at 8A Franich Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5154577 — Property damage at 8A Franich Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions