What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5176411?

The tribunal order states: Kiel Flattery-Donohoe must pay Gold Property Management Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 5176411?

Cleaning: $782.72 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $229.23 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Door: $471.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176411?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11994201-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5176411?

The tribunal order states: Kiel Flattery-Donohoe must pay Gold Property Management Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 5176411?

Cleaning: $782.72 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $229.23 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Door: $471.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176411?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176411?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11994201-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Ashgrove Terrace, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176411 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176411 — net $2,283.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$782.72	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$800.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$229.23	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Wardrobe Door	$471.50	Repairs: Wardrobe Door
Net award	$2,283.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,283.45

The landlord attended the remote hearing on 17 June 2025.

The tenant did not attend the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given to the tenant.

The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord provided photos of the interior and exterior of the premises in evidence, which confirmed that the tenant had not left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, nor had rubbish being removed. Invoices were provided for the gardening, cleaning and rubbish removal. I consider the invoices to be reasonable.

The amounts ordered are proven.

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.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $500.00.

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.

A wardrobe door was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided photos of the damage and an invoice for the repairs. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amount ordered is proven.

The landlord seeks exemplary damages for a breach of the tenants responsibilities under section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA, which requires a tenant to quit the premises on the termination of the tenancy. It is an unlawful act for the tenant not to quit the premises on the termination of the tenancy (see s.40(3A)(a) RTA).

The tenancy was terminated on 23 February 2025 by order of the Tribunal. The landlord’s evidence was that following termination, the tenant failed to respond to any attempt to communicate with the tenant. The landlord said that the tenant didn't seem to be living at the premises after the termination date, but that his belongings remained there. This obviously caused the landlord substantial inconvenience.

Section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA requires the tenant to quit the premises.

The evidence would suggest that the tenant has quit the premises, but has failed to remove all of his belongings from the premises, which is a separate breach of s.40(1)(e)(ii) RTA. A breach of s.40(1)(e)(ii) RTA is not an unlawful act. The Tribunal may only consider an award of exemplary damages where a tenant has committed an unlawful act. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176411 — net $2,283.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$782.72	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$800.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$229.23	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Wardrobe Door	$471.50	Repairs: Wardrobe Door
Net award	$2,283.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,283.45

Order

Kiel Flattery-Donohoe must pay Gold Property Management Limited T/A Harcourts Gold Property Management Ltd As Agent For A S Donald (Jill Donald) $2,283.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing on 17 June 2025.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given to the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photos of the interior and exterior of the premises in evidence, which confirmed that the tenant had not left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, nor had rubbish being removed. Invoices were provided for the gardening, cleaning and rubbish removal. I consider the invoices to be reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $500.00.
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.
A wardrobe door was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord provided photos of the damage and an invoice for the repairs. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proven.
The landlord seeks exemplary damages for a breach of the tenants responsibilities under section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA, which requires a tenant to quit the premises on the termination of the tenancy. It is an unlawful act for the tenant not to quit the premises on the termination of the tenancy (see s.40(3A)(a) RTA).
The tenancy was terminated on 23 February 2025 by order of the Tribunal. The landlord’s evidence was that following termination, the tenant failed to respond to any attempt to communicate with the tenant. The landlord said that the tenant didn't seem to be living at the premises after the termination date, but that his belongings remained there. This obviously caused the landlord substantial inconvenience.
Section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA requires the tenant to quit the premises.
The evidence would suggest that the tenant has quit the premises, but has failed to remove all of his belongings from the premises, which is a separate breach of s.40(1)(e)(ii) RTA. A breach of s.40(1)(e)(ii) RTA is not an unlawful act. The Tribunal may only consider an award of exemplary damages where a tenant has committed an unlawful act. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176411 — Cleanliness at 5 Ashgrove Terrace, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176411 — Cleanliness at 5 Ashgrove Terrace, Somerfield, Christchurch 8024

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