What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5187531?

The tribunal order states: Ashlee Harrison must pay Greenmount Property Management Limited as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5187531?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187531?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12369125-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5187531?

The tribunal order states: Ashlee Harrison must pay Greenmount Property Management Limited as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5187531?

Cleaning: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187531?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12369125-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 104 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5187531 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5187531 — net $717.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$717.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$717.00

Order

Ashlee Harrison must pay Greenmount Property Management Limited as Agent for Yubing Feng $717.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The claim for carpet damage is withdrawn by the applicant.

Reasons

This matter was first set down for hearing on 27 June 2025 and both parties attended the hearing on that day.
On 27 June 2025 the Tribunal determined the parties to the current proceeding and the wall damage claim and adjourned the remaining matters part heard.
The Tribunal ordered that Michele Hoye be removed as a party to this application and the landlord was to file a separate application if a claim is to be pursued against her. The application for damage repair for the large hole in the DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$690.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$717.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$717.00 wall was dismissed. The remaining claims were adjourned, and directions were made for the filing of further evidence.
Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing today. The file records that notice of hearing was sent to the tenant by email so the matter proceeded in the tenant’s absence. The Tribunal will take in to account the evidence given by both partes at the last hearing. Background
The history of the relationship between landlord and tenant in respect of these premises is summarised as follows: (a)In June 2021 the tenant entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord to rent the premises and moved in with her daughter. Sometime during the tenancy, the tenant’s mother also moved into the premises. (b)In March 2022 the tenant and her daughter moved out of the premises. The landlord entered into a new tenancy agreement with the tenant’s mother, Michele Hoye. The agreement includes a clause which states “Taking over tenancy - Michele Hoye is living at 1/104 Pakuranga Road before taking over the tenancy from Ashlee Harrison (Daughter), thus Michele Hoye will be taking over the responsibility of maintaining the property at the same condition when Ashlee Moved in, which is identified at Ashlee Ingoing Inspection Report.” (c)In May 2024 Michele Hoye moved out of the premises. The landlord offered the premises to the tenant, and she entered into a new tenancy agreement with a clause which stated “Taking over of tenancy - Ashlee is taking over the tenancy from Michele Lee Hoye, thus Hoye's ingoing condition will be used as Harrisons Ingoing inspection report and rent increase will be continue as was planned with Michele Hoye tenancy.” The parties advised that the rent was not increased. (d)The landlord did not conduct an end of tenancy inspection and refunded the bond to Michele Hoye minus an agreed sum for carpet cleaning.
The tenancy of Ashlee ended on 10 February 2025. The landlord filed an application for vacated compensation naming both Ashlee Harrison and Michele Hoye as tenants.
At the hearing on 27 June 2025 I found that Ashlee Harrison and Michele Hoye had separate tenancy agreements with the landlord for different periods of time.
Ashlee Harrison was a tenant from June 2021 until March 2022 and again from May 2024 until February 2025.
Michele Hoye was a tenant from March 2022 until May 2024.
The application before me records that the tenancy commenced on 6 May 2024 and ended on 10 February 2025. Michele Hoye was not the tenant during this period of time. She was therefore removed as a tenant party from this application. The claims
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, pest control and carpet replacement.
The landlord advised that they have filed a claim against Michele Hoye but that has not been set down before me today.
The landlord seeks to withdraw the claim for carpet damage as this will be pursued against Michele Hoye.
The Tribunal will therefore consider the landlord’s claim that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and the tenant did not remove all rubbish.

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 Act).
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning, pest treatment and rubbish removal costs.
At the last hearing the tenant advised that the premises were not provided to her in a clean state and that rubbish belonging to her mother was left at the premises. The landlord stated that the tenant had agreed to this by signing a tenancy agreement with the clause “Taking over of tenancy - Ashlee is taking over the tenancy from Michele Lee Hoye, thus Hoye's ingoing condition will be used as Harrisons Ingoing inspection report and rent increase will be continue as was planned with Michele Hoye tenancy”. The tenant stated that she was not aware of the poor condition of the premises as she signed the agreement before sighting the premises.
No entry photographs of the premises were provided although both parties agreed that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness as stated in section 45 (1)(a) of the Act.
Although the tenant purported to waive her right to receive the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness section 11 (3) of the Act states that any purported waiver by a tenant of a right under the Act is of no effect.
I find that the tenant’s waiver is of no effect and I will take in to account the condition of the premises when considering whether the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord has provided end of tenancy photographs and states these were taken on 11 February 2025. The photographs show that the premises were left empty with the exception of rubbish in the garage, a few items in the kitchen and rubbish outside. The photographs reveal that some further cleaning was required in particular wiping kitchen drawers and cupboards and wiping some walls and windowsills. Very few photographs of the bathroom and bedrooms were provided.
The invoice provided by the landlord for $920 does not itemise the work done by the cleaner.
Having considered the evidence I find on the balance of probabilities that some further cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, in view of the agreed entry condition and the lack of evidence in the bedrooms and bathroom I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the cost of a full house clean. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord seventy five percent of the cleaning invoice being $690.00.
I do not order reimbursement of the pest control invoice as due to the age and condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy I am not satisfied the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for pests at the premises.
The landlord provided photographs of rubbish left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence on 27 June that the rubbish was left behind by her mother. She stated that she had already paid for one skip bin at the end of her tenancy but did not agree to pay for a second. The landlord stated that some of this rubbish was left from the previous tenant and some from this tenancy but did not identify what rubbish was left by Ms Ashlee Harrison. I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the remaining rubbish and therefore decline to order compensation for the cost of the second skip bin as claimed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has partially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee as applied for. See section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5187531 — net $717.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$690.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$717.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$717.00

Order

Ashlee Harrison must pay Greenmount Property Management Limited as Agent for Yubing Feng $717.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The claim for carpet damage is withdrawn by the applicant.

Reasons

This matter was first set down for hearing on 27 June 2025 and both parties attended the hearing on that day.
On 27 June 2025 the Tribunal determined the parties to the current proceeding and the wall damage claim and adjourned the remaining matters part heard.
The Tribunal ordered that Michele Hoye be removed as a party to this application and the landlord was to file a separate application if a claim is to be pursued against her. The application for damage repair for the large hole in the DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$690.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$717.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$717.00 wall was dismissed. The remaining claims were adjourned, and directions were made for the filing of further evidence.
Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing today. The file records that notice of hearing was sent to the tenant by email so the matter proceeded in the tenant’s absence. The Tribunal will take in to account the evidence given by both partes at the last hearing. Background
The history of the relationship between landlord and tenant in respect of these premises is summarised as follows: (a)In June 2021 the tenant entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord to rent the premises and moved in with her daughter. Sometime during the tenancy, the tenant’s mother also moved into the premises. (b)In March 2022 the tenant and her daughter moved out of the premises. The landlord entered into a new tenancy agreement with the tenant’s mother, Michele Hoye. The agreement includes a clause which states “Taking over tenancy - Michele Hoye is living at 1/104 Pakuranga Road before taking over the tenancy from Ashlee Harrison (Daughter), thus Michele Hoye will be taking over the responsibility of maintaining the property at the same condition when Ashlee Moved in, which is identified at Ashlee Ingoing Inspection Report.” (c)In May 2024 Michele Hoye moved out of the premises. The landlord offered the premises to the tenant, and she entered into a new tenancy agreement with a clause which stated “Taking over of tenancy - Ashlee is taking over the tenancy from Michele Lee Hoye, thus Hoye's ingoing condition will be used as Harrisons Ingoing inspection report and rent increase will be continue as was planned with Michele Hoye tenancy.” The parties advised that the rent was not increased. (d)The landlord did not conduct an end of tenancy inspection and refunded the bond to Michele Hoye minus an agreed sum for carpet cleaning.
The tenancy of Ashlee ended on 10 February 2025. The landlord filed an application for vacated compensation naming both Ashlee Harrison and Michele Hoye as tenants.
At the hearing on 27 June 2025 I found that Ashlee Harrison and Michele Hoye had separate tenancy agreements with the landlord for different periods of time.
Ashlee Harrison was a tenant from June 2021 until March 2022 and again from May 2024 until February 2025.
Michele Hoye was a tenant from March 2022 until May 2024.
The application before me records that the tenancy commenced on 6 May 2024 and ended on 10 February 2025. Michele Hoye was not the tenant during this period of time. She was therefore removed as a tenant party from this application. The claims
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, pest control and carpet replacement.
The landlord advised that they have filed a claim against Michele Hoye but that has not been set down before me today.
The landlord seeks to withdraw the claim for carpet damage as this will be pursued against Michele Hoye.
The Tribunal will therefore consider the landlord’s claim that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy and the tenant did not remove all rubbish.

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 Act).
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning, pest treatment and rubbish removal costs.
At the last hearing the tenant advised that the premises were not provided to her in a clean state and that rubbish belonging to her mother was left at the premises. The landlord stated that the tenant had agreed to this by signing a tenancy agreement with the clause “Taking over of tenancy - Ashlee is taking over the tenancy from Michele Lee Hoye, thus Hoye's ingoing condition will be used as Harrisons Ingoing inspection report and rent increase will be continue as was planned with Michele Hoye tenancy”. The tenant stated that she was not aware of the poor condition of the premises as she signed the agreement before sighting the premises.
No entry photographs of the premises were provided although both parties agreed that the premises were not provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
The landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness as stated in section 45 (1)(a) of the Act.
Although the tenant purported to waive her right to receive the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness section 11 (3) of the Act states that any purported waiver by a tenant of a right under the Act is of no effect.
I find that the tenant’s waiver is of no effect and I will take in to account the condition of the premises when considering whether the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord has provided end of tenancy photographs and states these were taken on 11 February 2025. The photographs show that the premises were left empty with the exception of rubbish in the garage, a few items in the kitchen and rubbish outside. The photographs reveal that some further cleaning was required in particular wiping kitchen drawers and cupboards and wiping some walls and windowsills. Very few photographs of the bathroom and bedrooms were provided.
The invoice provided by the landlord for $920 does not itemise the work done by the cleaner.
Having considered the evidence I find on the balance of probabilities that some further cleaning was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. However, in view of the agreed entry condition and the lack of evidence in the bedrooms and bathroom I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the cost of a full house clean. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord seventy five percent of the cleaning invoice being $690.00.
I do not order reimbursement of the pest control invoice as due to the age and condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy I am not satisfied the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for pests at the premises.
The landlord provided photographs of rubbish left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence on 27 June that the rubbish was left behind by her mother. She stated that she had already paid for one skip bin at the end of her tenancy but did not agree to pay for a second. The landlord stated that some of this rubbish was left from the previous tenant and some from this tenancy but did not identify what rubbish was left by Ms Ashlee Harrison. I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the remaining rubbish and therefore decline to order compensation for the cost of the second skip bin as claimed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has partially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee as applied for. See section 102(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187531 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 104 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187531 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1, 104 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions