What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5167052?

The tribunal order states: Josiah Piers Hunt and Sophia Taing to pay Harcourts Highland Real Estate

How much money was awarded in case 5167052?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167052?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11518242-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5167052?

The tribunal order states: Josiah Piers Hunt and Sophia Taing to pay Harcourts Highland Real Estate

How much money was awarded in case 5167052?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167052?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11518242-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

45A Lees Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5167052 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167052 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning, including curtain cleaning	$500.00	8. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$1,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Josiah Piers Hunt and Sophia Taing to pay Harcourts Highland Real Estate Group Ltd T/A Harcourts Dunedin $500.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,160.00 (5481610-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Harcourts Highland Real Estate Group Ltd T/A Harcourts Dunedin: $500.00 Josiah Piers Hunt and Sophia Taing: $660.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy in January 2025.

I note from the onset that this tenancy that Mr Hunt and Ms Taing inherited is rather unusual. They were not the original tenants who entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord in 2009. Mr Hunt and Mr Taing only took over the tenancy as tenants from 2019 and 2021 respectively.

I consider that it would be unfair and inequitable to hold them account for a tenancy that they did not sign up for in 2009. This is despite the joint and several liability of the terms of the tenancy agreement amendment form that Mr Hunt and Ms Taking signed and accepted in 2019 and 2021 respectively.

To impute Mr Hunt and Ms Taing’s liability back to 2009 would result in injustice. I consider that Mr Hunt and Ms Taing are only liable for handing back the premises in the same condition they were given in 2019 and 2021 respectively, less fair wear and tear.

Against that backdrop, I now address the landlord’s claims as follows.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant accepts $350.00 of the cleaning costs. I consider this fair and appropriate.

The landlord’s claim for $315.00 for curtain cleaning costs is partly successful. I award $150.00 of the costs claimed by the landlord. The curtains have depreciated almost entirely from 2009 to 2025. I do not accept the tenant’s evidence that mould was present in the curtains in 2019 and 2021 when Mr Hunt and Ms Taing’s tenancy commenced. The existing tenants are responsible for keeping the premises, including the curtains reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord says that the tenant did not return the garage remote. The landlord seeks $250.00 cost for the replacement garage remote.

The onus of proving that a garage remote control was provided at the start of the tenancy lies with the landlord. The original tenancy agreement dated in 2009 merely states that the garage/car port was provided to the then tenants in an acceptable condition. There was no mention of any garage remote being provided. The number of keys supplied to the then tenants were also left blank.

The landlord’s claim for compensation on account of missing garage door remote therefore fails.

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 landlord failed to prove that the kitchen bench and walls were not already damaged at the start of Mr Hunt and Ms Taing’s tenancy.

The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the glass splash back also fails. The purported damage was done by the landlord’s cleaners while cleaning the “caked oil” off the walls. I have already apportioned liability for partial cleaning costs against the tenant. I consider that to be the extent of the tenant’s liability in the circumstances.

The tenant has disproved liability for the landlord’s claims for compensation and damage.

Only the amounts ordered are proved.

I therefore divide the bond as set out above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167052 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning, including curtain cleaning	$500.00	8. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$1,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

Josiah Piers Hunt and Sophia Taing to pay Harcourts Highland Real Estate Group Ltd T/A Harcourts Dunedin $500.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,160.00 (5481610-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Harcourts Highland Real Estate Group Ltd T/A Harcourts Dunedin: $500.00 Josiah Piers Hunt and Sophia Taing: $660.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy in January 2025.
I note from the onset that this tenancy that Mr Hunt and Ms Taing inherited is rather unusual. They were not the original tenants who entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord in 2009. Mr Hunt and Mr Taing only took over the tenancy as tenants from 2019 and 2021 respectively.
I consider that it would be unfair and inequitable to hold them account for a tenancy that they did not sign up for in 2009. This is despite the joint and several liability of the terms of the tenancy agreement amendment form that Mr Hunt and Ms Taking signed and accepted in 2019 and 2021 respectively.
To impute Mr Hunt and Ms Taing’s liability back to 2009 would result in injustice. I consider that Mr Hunt and Ms Taing are only liable for handing back the premises in the same condition they were given in 2019 and 2021 respectively, less fair wear and tear.
Against that backdrop, I now address the landlord’s claims as follows.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant accepts $350.00 of the cleaning costs. I consider this fair and appropriate.
The landlord’s claim for $315.00 for curtain cleaning costs is partly successful. I award $150.00 of the costs claimed by the landlord. The curtains have depreciated almost entirely from 2009 to 2025. I do not accept the tenant’s evidence that mould was present in the curtains in 2019 and 2021 when Mr Hunt and Ms Taing’s tenancy commenced. The existing tenants are responsible for keeping the premises, including the curtains reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord says that the tenant did not return the garage remote. The landlord seeks $250.00 cost for the replacement garage remote.
The onus of proving that a garage remote control was provided at the start of the tenancy lies with the landlord. The original tenancy agreement dated in 2009 merely states that the garage/car port was provided to the then tenants in an acceptable condition. There was no mention of any garage remote being provided. The number of keys supplied to the then tenants were also left blank.
The landlord’s claim for compensation on account of missing garage door remote therefore fails.

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 landlord failed to prove that the kitchen bench and walls were not already damaged at the start of Mr Hunt and Ms Taing’s tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the glass splash back also fails. The purported damage was done by the landlord’s cleaners while cleaning the “caked oil” off the walls. I have already apportioned liability for partial cleaning costs against the tenant. I consider that to be the extent of the tenant’s liability in the circumstances.
The tenant has disproved liability for the landlord’s claims for compensation and damage.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.
I therefore divide the bond as set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167052 — Cleanliness at 45A Lees Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167052 — Cleanliness at 45A Lees Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

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