What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5169111?

The tribunal order states: John William Spencer and Isabella Kim Palmer owe Pim Patricia Isabel

How much money was awarded in case 5169111?

Rent Arrears: $1,760.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5169111?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5169111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12045490-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5169111?

The tribunal order states: John William Spencer and Isabella Kim Palmer owe Pim Patricia Isabel

How much money was awarded in case 5169111?

Rent Arrears: $1,760.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5169111?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5169111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12045490-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

62 Bright Street, Cobden, Greymouth 7802 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5169111 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5169111 — net $290.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,760.00	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$50.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$290.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$290.00

John William Spencer and Isabella Kim Palmer owe Pim Patricia Isabel Mosquera Jansson and Bartholomew Kay $290.00, calculated as shown in the table below:

John William Spencer and Isabella Kim Palmer must pay the debt in order 1 at the rate of $50.00 per fortnight.

The first payment must be made on Saturday 5 July 2025 and payments must continue every fortnight thereafter until the debt is paid in full.

If John William Spencer and Isabella Kim Palmer fail to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (5555390-005) to Pim Patricia Isabel Mosquera Jansson and Bartholomew Kay immediately.

Reasons

This matter was heard by teleconference. Both parties attended.

The landlord’s application sought rent arrears of $1,760.00, cleaning and rubbish removal costs of $516.76, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

As the applicant, the landlord bears the legal burden to prove each element on their claim on the balance of probabilities. Rent Arrears

The tenancy began on 23 May 2022 and ended on 2 December 2024. The landlord provided a rent summary showing the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants accepted liability for the rent arrears claimed of $1,760.00. Cleaning and Rubbish Removal

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 (“RTA”).

Cleaning: The landlord provided limited post-tenancy photographs and an invoice for $516.76, which included cleaning and rubbish removal. The tenants disputed the cleaning charges, maintaining that they left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Diane, who assisted with the end-of-tenancy clean, gave detailed oral evidence about the extensive cleaning she undertook, including cleaning the stove and bathroom over multiple days.

There was no evidence (such as entry inspection photos or a condition report) to establish the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The tenants gave evidence that the premises were not clean when they moved in and that they had left it in a better condition.

The standard under section 40(1)(e)(ii) RTA is that the tenant must leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy” not spotless or professionally cleaned. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades or behind heavy appliances unless they can be moved safely or easily. It is common that a landlord may wish 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.

From the photos provided and the evidence given, the cleaning issues identified appeared to be minor or best addressed with a “commercial clean” rather than a tenant’s effort. It is of course not unusual for a landlord to occasionally arrange a commercial clean, irrespective of the tenant’s efforts, as part of normal property maintenance. Given the absence of start-of-tenancy photos, the relatively minor nature of the issues depicted, and the credible and consistent detailed testimony offered by the tenants and their witness, the Tribunal finds the landlord has not discharged the burden of proof on this part of the claim. The cleaning portion of the invoice is dismissed.

Rubbish removal: The tenants accepted that a small quantity of rubbish visible in the landlord’s photographs was theirs (e.g. a green bike and a metal frame), though they noted much of it had already been collected shortly after vacating. They provided context that some items (e.g. flue parts, materials in a drum) were debris from the property itself or damage caused by disrepair (e.g. wind-damaged cladding).

I accept that a small amount of rubbish attributable to the tenants remained. In the absence of a breakdown in the invoice and based on proportionality, I consider it fair to award $50.00 towards rubbish removal. Filing Fee

As the landlord has not been wholly successful in their claim and key elements were disputed or dismissed, I decline to award the filing fee. Suppression Order

While both parties experienced partial success, neither can be said to have substantially or wholly succeeded as required under section 95A RTA. The threshold for suppression is not met. As such, suppression is not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5169111 — net $290.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,760.00	Rent arrears
Rubbish removal	$50.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$290.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$290.00

Order

John William Spencer and Isabella Kim Palmer owe Pim Patricia Isabel Mosquera Jansson and Bartholomew Kay $290.00, calculated as shown in the table below:
John William Spencer and Isabella Kim Palmer must pay the debt in order 1 at the rate of $50.00 per fortnight.
The first payment must be made on Saturday 5 July 2025 and payments must continue every fortnight thereafter until the debt is paid in full.
If John William Spencer and Isabella Kim Palmer fail to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (5555390-005) to Pim Patricia Isabel Mosquera Jansson and Bartholomew Kay immediately.

Reasons

This matter was heard by teleconference. Both parties attended.
The landlord’s application sought rent arrears of $1,760.00, cleaning and rubbish removal costs of $516.76, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
As the applicant, the landlord bears the legal burden to prove each element on their claim on the balance of probabilities. Rent Arrears
The tenancy began on 23 May 2022 and ended on 2 December 2024. The landlord provided a rent summary showing the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants accepted liability for the rent arrears claimed of $1,760.00. Cleaning and Rubbish Removal
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 (“RTA”).
Cleaning: The landlord provided limited post-tenancy photographs and an invoice for $516.76, which included cleaning and rubbish removal. The tenants disputed the cleaning charges, maintaining that they left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Diane, who assisted with the end-of-tenancy clean, gave detailed oral evidence about the extensive cleaning she undertook, including cleaning the stove and bathroom over multiple days.
There was no evidence (such as entry inspection photos or a condition report) to establish the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy. The tenants gave evidence that the premises were not clean when they moved in and that they had left it in a better condition.
The standard under section 40(1)(e)(ii) RTA is that the tenant must leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy” not spotless or professionally cleaned. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades or behind heavy appliances unless they can be moved safely or easily. It is common that a landlord may wish 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.
From the photos provided and the evidence given, the cleaning issues identified appeared to be minor or best addressed with a “commercial clean” rather than a tenant’s effort. It is of course not unusual for a landlord to occasionally arrange a commercial clean, irrespective of the tenant’s efforts, as part of normal property maintenance. Given the absence of start-of-tenancy photos, the relatively minor nature of the issues depicted, and the credible and consistent detailed testimony offered by the tenants and their witness, the Tribunal finds the landlord has not discharged the burden of proof on this part of the claim. The cleaning portion of the invoice is dismissed.
Rubbish removal: The tenants accepted that a small quantity of rubbish visible in the landlord’s photographs was theirs (e.g. a green bike and a metal frame), though they noted much of it had already been collected shortly after vacating. They provided context that some items (e.g. flue parts, materials in a drum) were debris from the property itself or damage caused by disrepair (e.g. wind-damaged cladding).
I accept that a small amount of rubbish attributable to the tenants remained. In the absence of a breakdown in the invoice and based on proportionality, I consider it fair to award $50.00 towards rubbish removal. Filing Fee
As the landlord has not been wholly successful in their claim and key elements were disputed or dismissed, I decline to award the filing fee. Suppression Order
While both parties experienced partial success, neither can be said to have substantially or wholly succeeded as required under section 95A RTA. The threshold for suppression is not met. As such, suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5169111 — Rent arrears at 62 Bright Street, Cobden, Greymouth 7802

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5169111 — Rent arrears at 62 Bright Street, Cobden, Greymouth 7802

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions