What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5198492?

The tribunal order states: Jayde Christina Aroha Arinni Coyle must pay Visionwest Community Trust

How much money was awarded in case 5198492?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,724.81 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin: $570.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198492?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198492?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12196178-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5198492?

The tribunal order states: Jayde Christina Aroha Arinni Coyle must pay Visionwest Community Trust

How much money was awarded in case 5198492?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,724.81 awarded to landlord; Skip Bin: $570.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5198492?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5198492?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12196178-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 8 Ebony Place, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5198492 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5198492 — net $2,892.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Five Star Maintenance Limited Repair Invoices	$2,724.81	Five Star Maintenance Limited Repair Invoices
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Skip Bin	$570.00	Skip Bin
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,892.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,892.81

Order

Jayde Christina Aroha Arinni Coyle must pay Visionwest Community Trust Acting Agent For Xiaoxue Sun $2,892.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $636.00 (3077493-015) to Visionwest Community Trust Acting Agent For Xiaoxue Sun immediately.
The Applicant attended the hearing in person.
The Applicant’s representative submitted that the Respondent terminated the tenancy by giving 21 days’ notice, which expired on 16 February 2025. It is alleged that the property was left in an unclean and damaged condition, requiring substantial cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs. The Applicant seeks compensation for these costs.
Applicant seeks the following awards, supported by invoices and photographic evidence: a) $570.00 for skip bin hire; b) $207.00 for carpet cleaning. c) $4541.35 for repairs, including (Five Star Maintenance Limited Invoices): i.$172.50 for replacement clips for a toilet seat (invoice $150.00 + GST); ii.$149.50 for reattaching and replacing five kitchen handles (invoice $130.00 + GST); iii.$116.15 for replacement window latches (invoice $101.00 + GST); iv.$1,642.20 for plastering, sanding, and painting the lounge, bedrooms, and laundry (invoice $1,428.00 + GST); v.$287.50 for replacement of a sliding door lock (invoice $250.00 + GST); vi.$460.00 for a full house clean (invoice $400.00 + GST); vii.$644.00 for labour to load the skip bin (invoice $560.00 + GST); viii.$552.00 for wiping down all interior walls with sugar soap (invoice $480.00 + GST), supported by a meth report and evidence of a clean test at the commencement of the tenancy; ix.$517.50 for lawn mowing, weed removal, and clipping disposal (invoice $450.00 + GST); Respondents Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. Relevant Legal Considerations:
Under s 49B(3)(a) RTA, where careless damage is covered by insurance, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.
Under s 49B(3)(b) and 49B(3A) (a) RTA, where damage is not covered by insurance, or where coverage is excluded due to the tenant’s actions, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent.
Compensation must take account of depreciation and avoid betterment; the landlord is entitled only to be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant complied with their obligations.
Section 45(1)(a) RTA requires that the landlord provide, and the tenant return, the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, with all rubbish removed.
The applicable standard is “reasonably clean and tidy,” not immaculate. The Tribunal assesses this on the evidence presented, including the tenancy duration and the general condition of the premises.
Under s 40(2)(b) RTA, tenants must not use, or permit use of, the premises for unlawful purposes.
In Barfoot & Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, the Tribunal preferred the Gluckman Report (2018), which concludes there is no health risk from third-party exposure to methamphetamine residues at or below 15 μg/100cm², absent evidence of manufacture. While the NZS 8510:2017 Standard prescribes a threshold of 1.5 μg/100cm², the Tribunal recognises the Gluckman Report as the more scientifically robust approach, as supported in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019].

Reasons

The exit inspection demonstrates that a substantial quantity of rubbish was left on the premises. The hire of a skip bin was therefore necessary. I award $570.00.
Photographs show that the property was unclean and unsanitary and that the carpet probably required cleaning. The carpet cleaning claimed is therefore justified. I award $207.00.
In relation to the Five Star Maintenance Limited repair and maintenance invoices, I accept that the works were required: a) Toilet seat repair: supported by photographs, but the charge of $172.50 (incl GST) is disproportionate for the minor work undertaken. b) Kitchen handles: three reattachments and two replacements were needed, supported by evidence. c) Window latches: photographs confirm removal, requiring replacement. d) Plastering, sanding, and painting: photographs confirm holes and extensive stickers requiring remedial work. e) Sliding door lock: missing, requiring replacement. f) Sugar soap wipe-down: supported by a meth report. Although the test results did not exceed the remediation threshold, I accept this as reasonable under s 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA. The presence of meth breached the reasonably clean standard. g) Full house clean: supported by evidence, in addition to the sugar soap wipe-down. h) Lawn mowing: photographs confirm overgrown condition, though the $450.00 claimed is high given the small section. i) Rubbish removal labour: supported by photographs of significant rubbish.
These claims are supported by invoices from Five Star Maintenance Limited. While justified, I find several of the amounts excessive — for example, the disproportionate charge for a toilet seat repair and the high cost of lawn mowing. For this reason, I have looked at the remaining costs incurred through Five Star Maintenance Limited with caution and on this basis, I am awarding 60% of those costs being $2724.81.
As the Applicant has substantially succeeded, I order reimbursement of the $27.00 filing fee.
The applicant is a social housing provider and I have identified issues with the evidence presented in this case. For these reasons I find that the public interest in the outcome of this application outweighs the interests of the applicant in suppression. For that reason, I am declining to grant the applicants request for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5198492 — net $2,892.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Five Star Maintenance Limited Repair Invoices	$2,724.81	Five Star Maintenance Limited Repair Invoices
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Skip Bin	$570.00	Skip Bin
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,892.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,892.81

Order

Jayde Christina Aroha Arinni Coyle must pay Visionwest Community Trust Acting Agent For Xiaoxue Sun $2,892.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $636.00 (3077493-015) to Visionwest Community Trust Acting Agent For Xiaoxue Sun immediately.
The Applicant attended the hearing in person.
The Applicant’s representative submitted that the Respondent terminated the tenancy by giving 21 days’ notice, which expired on 16 February 2025. It is alleged that the property was left in an unclean and damaged condition, requiring substantial cleaning, rubbish removal, and repairs. The Applicant seeks compensation for these costs.
Applicant seeks the following awards, supported by invoices and photographic evidence: a) $570.00 for skip bin hire; b) $207.00 for carpet cleaning. c) $4541.35 for repairs, including (Five Star Maintenance Limited Invoices): i.$172.50 for replacement clips for a toilet seat (invoice $150.00 + GST); ii.$149.50 for reattaching and replacing five kitchen handles (invoice $130.00 + GST); iii.$116.15 for replacement window latches (invoice $101.00 + GST); iv.$1,642.20 for plastering, sanding, and painting the lounge, bedrooms, and laundry (invoice $1,428.00 + GST); v.$287.50 for replacement of a sliding door lock (invoice $250.00 + GST); vi.$460.00 for a full house clean (invoice $400.00 + GST); vii.$644.00 for labour to load the skip bin (invoice $560.00 + GST); viii.$552.00 for wiping down all interior walls with sugar soap (invoice $480.00 + GST), supported by a meth report and evidence of a clean test at the commencement of the tenancy; ix.$517.50 for lawn mowing, weed removal, and clipping disposal (invoice $450.00 + GST); Respondents Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. Relevant Legal Considerations:
Under s 49B(3)(a) RTA, where careless damage is covered by insurance, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent.
Under s 49B(3)(b) and 49B(3A) (a) RTA, where damage is not covered by insurance, or where coverage is excluded due to the tenant’s actions, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent.
Compensation must take account of depreciation and avoid betterment; the landlord is entitled only to be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant complied with their obligations.
Section 45(1)(a) RTA requires that the landlord provide, and the tenant return, the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, with all rubbish removed.
The applicable standard is “reasonably clean and tidy,” not immaculate. The Tribunal assesses this on the evidence presented, including the tenancy duration and the general condition of the premises.
Under s 40(2)(b) RTA, tenants must not use, or permit use of, the premises for unlawful purposes.
In Barfoot & Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319, the Tribunal preferred the Gluckman Report (2018), which concludes there is no health risk from third-party exposure to methamphetamine residues at or below 15 μg/100cm², absent evidence of manufacture. While the NZS 8510:2017 Standard prescribes a threshold of 1.5 μg/100cm², the Tribunal recognises the Gluckman Report as the more scientifically robust approach, as supported in Full Circle Real Estate v Piper [2019].

Reasons

The exit inspection demonstrates that a substantial quantity of rubbish was left on the premises. The hire of a skip bin was therefore necessary. I award $570.00.
Photographs show that the property was unclean and unsanitary and that the carpet probably required cleaning. The carpet cleaning claimed is therefore justified. I award $207.00.
In relation to the Five Star Maintenance Limited repair and maintenance invoices, I accept that the works were required: a) Toilet seat repair: supported by photographs, but the charge of $172.50 (incl GST) is disproportionate for the minor work undertaken. b) Kitchen handles: three reattachments and two replacements were needed, supported by evidence. c) Window latches: photographs confirm removal, requiring replacement. d) Plastering, sanding, and painting: photographs confirm holes and extensive stickers requiring remedial work. e) Sliding door lock: missing, requiring replacement. f) Sugar soap wipe-down: supported by a meth report. Although the test results did not exceed the remediation threshold, I accept this as reasonable under s 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA. The presence of meth breached the reasonably clean standard. g) Full house clean: supported by evidence, in addition to the sugar soap wipe-down. h) Lawn mowing: photographs confirm overgrown condition, though the $450.00 claimed is high given the small section. i) Rubbish removal labour: supported by photographs of significant rubbish.
These claims are supported by invoices from Five Star Maintenance Limited. While justified, I find several of the amounts excessive — for example, the disproportionate charge for a toilet seat repair and the high cost of lawn mowing. For this reason, I have looked at the remaining costs incurred through Five Star Maintenance Limited with caution and on this basis, I am awarding 60% of those costs being $2724.81.
As the Applicant has substantially succeeded, I order reimbursement of the $27.00 filing fee.
The applicant is a social housing provider and I have identified issues with the evidence presented in this case. For these reasons I find that the public interest in the outcome of this application outweighs the interests of the applicant in suppression. For that reason, I am declining to grant the applicants request for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198492 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 8 Ebony Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5198492 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 8 Ebony Place, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions