What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5203691?

The tribunal order states: Zaa-id Jain Shah must pay Cutlers Limited $2,206.25 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5203691?

Cleaning: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $776.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $649.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $569.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5203691?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5203691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12000363-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5203691?

The tribunal order states: Zaa-id Jain Shah must pay Cutlers Limited $2,206.25 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5203691?

Cleaning: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $776.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $649.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $569.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5203691?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5203691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12000363-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Huia Street, Saint Leonards, Dunedin 9022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5203691 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5203691 — net $2,206.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Spot carpet Cleaning	$109.25	Spot carpet Cleaning
Cleaning & mould removal	$776.25	Cleaning & mould removal
Rubbish removal	$569.25	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$649.75	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$74.75	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,206.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,206.25

Both parties attended all the hearings.

The tenancy was for a fixed term from 12/11/2021 @$540.00 rent per week when terminated by the Tribunal on 9/1/2025.

The landlord applied on 19/3/2025 for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The bond of $1,500.00 was previously refunded to the landlord for rent arrears.

On 5/6/2025, the tenant cross applied for lost economic opportunity costs of $19,177.60 for the state of the premises. Landlord’s claim

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claimed compensation of $2,357.50 as follows: a. $109.25 for spot cleaning of the carpets, b. $776.25 for cleaning of the kitchen and bathroom, and mould from the conservatory, c. $753.25 for rubbish removal, d. $718.75 for hedges, lawns, overgrown trees, and garden beds.

In support of the claim the landlord provided the exit inspection report dated 10/1/2025 with photographs, an invoice and a witness who undertook the post vacation work.

On the other hand, the tenant submitted that the cleaning and removal of furniture costs were unjust because his request for additional time to vacate and clean the property was denied.

The tenant suggested that had the further one day extension been allowed he had intended, despite adverse weather conditions to clean the premises.

However, the tenant believed he had left the premises in a reasonable state.

In response the landlord submitted that at the hearing for termination of the tenancy on 18/12/2024 the tenant had been given a three week timeframe to move by 9/1/2025.

As the tenant had not paid any rent during the three week period the landlord declined any further extension.

I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish by the date of termination.

Although section 49 provides for mitigation of loss, I do not consider this means a landlord is required to extend the timeframe for cleaning, removal of rubbish and possessions when, as in this case, the tenant had been given three weeks to move out.

The amounts ordered for rubbish removal and garden work have been reduced. The latter to reflect the costs involved in cutting back of trees and overgrown bushes which are not the responsibility of a tenant.

Removal of rubbish costs have also been reduced to reflect the fact that some of the items removed were the tenant’s possessions and no evidence was provided pursuant to section 62A about assessment of market value of the goods.

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.

The landlord claimed compensation of $414.00 as follows: a. $339.25 for repairs to a shelf, curtain track and bathroom drawer, b. $74.75 for fence repairs.

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.

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.

I am not satisfied that the tenant caused damage to the premises during the tenancy, as opposed to the damage being fair wear and tear.

The landlord and witness both agreed that some if not all of the damage could have been wear and tear during the four years of the tenancy.

The claim for compensation for repairs fails. Tenant’s claim

The tenant submitted that he reported multiple maintenance and safety issues to the landlord which pre-existed or occurred during the term of the tenancy, which were never or only partly resolved.

These issues included, but were not limited to: a. Broken toilet door lock, b. Inoperable leaking skylight in a bedroom, c. Nonfunctioning heat pump, replaced during the tenancy but the new one malfunctioned, d. Unusable and unsafe fireplace due to a broken lock, e. Overgrown hedges and slippery unsafe access stairs, f. Frequent flooding in the garage and backyard, g. Unsafe leaking conservatory roof, h. Inadequate kitchen and bathroom ventilation, i. Broken gate, j. Broken garage door, k. Electricity costs inflated due to pump operation for water management. l. Inadequate heating causing illness, m. Non replacement of carpet.

As the tenant considered the landlord had not maintained the property in a reasonable state of repair, he suggested that he had incurred economic loss as a result of living at the premises.

The tenant calculated the loss at $1.00 per day for twenty one unresolved items with a conservative 5% interest, totalling $19,177.60.

In support of the claims the tenant provided email communication between himself and the landlord between 4/3/2024 and 10/4/2024, a table of his 21 repair and maintenance concerns, which included a calculation of what he considered was his economic loss.

On the other hand, the landlord disputed that the premises were not well maintained.

The landlord suggested that there was no record of maintenance issues until after an email on 15/6/2023 by the property manager asking for an automatic payment to be set up for rent due to payments “constantly falling behind” and the rent being increased on 24/1/2024.

The landlord provided copies of routine property inspection reports dated 22/6/2023 and 30/10/203 respectively.

The latter report noted as urgent a cold water tap in the laundry not turning off, a staircase gate hanging off and broken clearlite on the garage. The landlord submitted the tap was fixed the same day and the other two matters repaired on 23/11/2023.

Further the landlord provided emails of the correspondence between the parties between 6/3/2024 and 2/5/2024 about rent and maintenance issues and relevant invoices for the work undertaken.

Also, the handyman gave evidence about the difficulties he experienced in arranging access with the tenant to undertake various repairs such as the bathroom door, drawers, and door rollers.

Under section 45, a landlord must, among other matters, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Both parties are required to establish their respective claims to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant he has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord failed to maintain the property or undertake repairs in a reasonably timely manner.

Apart from the routine inspection report of 30/10/2023, there is no objective evidence prior to the tenant’s email of 4/3/2024 that he was concerned about any maintenance issues with the premises.

In addition, when the tenant did raise issues, the landlord has provided supporting documentation to confirm these were attended to in a reasonably timely manner, taking into account the difficulties evidenced by the witness in gaining access.

I find there is no breach by the landlord of the obligations set out in section 45(1)(b) to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.

The landlord has not committed an unlawful act and exemplary damages are not available to the tenant.

The claim for lost economic opportunity costs is unsuccessful.

As Cutlers Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.

The landlord did not ask for name suppression.

Suppression is not available to the tenant because he was unsuccessful in the proceedings.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5203691 — net $2,206.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Spot carpet Cleaning	$109.25	Spot carpet Cleaning
Cleaning & mould removal	$776.25	Cleaning & mould removal
Rubbish removal	$569.25	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$649.75	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs	$74.75	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,206.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,206.25