How much money was awarded in case 5204193?

Cleaning: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,831.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204193?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11961207-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5204193?

Cleaning: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,831.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204193?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11961207-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Conductors Road, Prebbleton, Prebbleton 7604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204193 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5204193?

The tribunal order states: Tyler Glover must pay A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Bryan Peter

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5204193 — net $2,451.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08/04/2025	$3,831.43	Rent arrears to 08/04/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Carpet Cleaning	$190.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$138.00	Cleaning
Painting	$345.00	Painting
Net award	$2,451.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,451.43

Tyler Glover must pay A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Bryan Peter Davidson & Debra Jane Davidson $2,451.43 immediately, as calculated in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6373481-011) to A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Bryan Peter Davidson & Debra Jane Davidson immediately.

The Applicant filed an application on 19 March 2025 seeking termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. On 15 April 2025, the application was updated to include vacated tenancy costs. Tenancy Services served the Respondent with the updated application on 1 May 2025. Applicants Case:

The Applicant attended the hearing by phone.

The Applicant's representative explained the original claim was for rent arrears and termination. As the tenancy has since ended, the Applicant now seeks costs associated with the vacated tenancy.

The matter was initially scheduled for mediation, which the Respondent did not attend. A 90-day termination notice then expired on 8 April 2025, at which point the tenancy ended. During the post-tenancy inspection, the Applicant found an individual, a friend of the Respondent, occupying the property. This person vacated on 10 April 2025. However, the Applicant only seeks rent up to 8 April 2025.

The Applicant has asked me to make the following awards: a) Rent arrears of $3,831.43 to 8 April 2025; b) General cleaning costs of $138.00. The representative submitted photos showing grime buildup, dust in the heat pump filter, and an unemptied dishwasher filter; c) Carpet cleaning costs of $190.00, supported by photographs of stains and chewing gum; d) Bin emptying and cleaning fees of $105.80, including a dumping charge. The representative noted the bins were full, dirty, and emitting odour. Photos were provided; e) Painting costs of $575.00 to address scuff marks, scratches, and damage from adhesive hooks and LED light removal; Respondents Case:

The Respondent did not participate in the hearing. Two calls to the provided number went unanswered. I am satisfied that the respondent was aware of todays hearing and the matters to be discussed and decided. Relevant legal Considerations:

The landlord must prove the damage occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear (ss 49A, 49B, 66K(2)(a), 66L RTA). If proven, the tenant must demonstrate it was not caused carelessly or intentionally. Tenants are liable for damage caused by individuals present with their permission.

Where careless damage is covered by insurance, tenant liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent (s 49B(3)(a) RTA).

If damage is not covered by insurance or is uninsurable due to the tenant’s actions, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent (s 49B(3)(b) and 49B(3A)(a) RTA).

Compensation must account for depreciation and avoid betterment. The landlord should be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations.

Under section 45(1)(a) RTA, the landlord must provide, and the tenant must return, the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition with all rubbish removed.

The standard is "reasonably clean and tidy," not immaculate. The Tribunal assesses the condition based on evidence, including photographs, and considers the tenancy duration and the property’s general condition.

Reasons

The Applicant has provided rent records showing outstanding rent up to 8 April 2025. I am satisfied this amount—$3,831.43—is accurate and therefore awarded.

I find that the Respondent failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Applicant submitted photographic evidence indicating a need for general and carpet cleaning. The cleaning costs of $138.00 and carpet cleaning costs of $190.00 are reasonable and supported by the evidence. I therefore award both amounts.

The claim for bin emptying and cleaning the bins is not reasonable. The Applicant acknowledged that the bins are routinely collected by the local council. There was no necessity to engage a contractor for a task that would have been addressed by routine council service within a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, the photographic evidence depicts typical wear expected of regularly used bins. While tenants may be expected to rinse and air out bins occasionally, the landlord may also reasonably be expected to perform this task upon regaining possession of the property. It falls within the scope of routine property management and maintenance. Accordingly, no award is made for the bin-related costs.

The Applicant provided an entry inspection report showing the property was in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The exit inspection and accompanying photographs indicate deterioration. While some wear—such as minor scuffs dents and indentations caused by furniture sitting against the wall—is expected over a five-year tenancy and is the landlord’s responsibility (for which they are compensated through rent), other damage appears to be beyond fair wear and tear. Examples include paint stripping caused by the removal of adhesive fixtures installed by the tenant. I therefore award 60% of the painting cost claimed, amounting to $345.00.

Because A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Bryan Peter Davidson & Debra Jane Davidson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5204193 — net $2,451.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 08/04/2025	$3,831.43	Rent arrears to 08/04/2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Carpet Cleaning	$190.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$138.00	Cleaning
Painting	$345.00	Painting
Net award	$2,451.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,451.43

Order

Tyler Glover must pay A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Bryan Peter Davidson & Debra Jane Davidson $2,451.43 immediately, as calculated in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6373481-011) to A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Bryan Peter Davidson & Debra Jane Davidson immediately.
The Applicant filed an application on 19 March 2025 seeking termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. On 15 April 2025, the application was updated to include vacated tenancy costs. Tenancy Services served the Respondent with the updated application on 1 May 2025. Applicants Case:
The Applicant attended the hearing by phone.
The Applicant's representative explained the original claim was for rent arrears and termination. As the tenancy has since ended, the Applicant now seeks costs associated with the vacated tenancy.
The matter was initially scheduled for mediation, which the Respondent did not attend. A 90-day termination notice then expired on 8 April 2025, at which point the tenancy ended. During the post-tenancy inspection, the Applicant found an individual, a friend of the Respondent, occupying the property. This person vacated on 10 April 2025. However, the Applicant only seeks rent up to 8 April 2025.
The Applicant has asked me to make the following awards: a) Rent arrears of $3,831.43 to 8 April 2025; b) General cleaning costs of $138.00. The representative submitted photos showing grime buildup, dust in the heat pump filter, and an unemptied dishwasher filter; c) Carpet cleaning costs of $190.00, supported by photographs of stains and chewing gum; d) Bin emptying and cleaning fees of $105.80, including a dumping charge. The representative noted the bins were full, dirty, and emitting odour. Photos were provided; e) Painting costs of $575.00 to address scuff marks, scratches, and damage from adhesive hooks and LED light removal; Respondents Case:
The Respondent did not participate in the hearing. Two calls to the provided number went unanswered. I am satisfied that the respondent was aware of todays hearing and the matters to be discussed and decided. Relevant legal Considerations:
The landlord must prove the damage occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear (ss 49A, 49B, 66K(2)(a), 66L RTA). If proven, the tenant must demonstrate it was not caused carelessly or intentionally. Tenants are liable for damage caused by individuals present with their permission.
Where careless damage is covered by insurance, tenant liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks’ rent (s 49B(3)(a) RTA).
If damage is not covered by insurance or is uninsurable due to the tenant’s actions, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent (s 49B(3)(b) and 49B(3A)(a) RTA).
Compensation must account for depreciation and avoid betterment. The landlord should be restored to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations.
Under section 45(1)(a) RTA, the landlord must provide, and the tenant must return, the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition with all rubbish removed.
The standard is "reasonably clean and tidy," not immaculate. The Tribunal assesses the condition based on evidence, including photographs, and considers the tenancy duration and the property’s general condition.

Reasons

The Applicant has provided rent records showing outstanding rent up to 8 April 2025. I am satisfied this amount—$3,831.43—is accurate and therefore awarded.
I find that the Respondent failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Applicant submitted photographic evidence indicating a need for general and carpet cleaning. The cleaning costs of $138.00 and carpet cleaning costs of $190.00 are reasonable and supported by the evidence. I therefore award both amounts.
The claim for bin emptying and cleaning the bins is not reasonable. The Applicant acknowledged that the bins are routinely collected by the local council. There was no necessity to engage a contractor for a task that would have been addressed by routine council service within a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, the photographic evidence depicts typical wear expected of regularly used bins. While tenants may be expected to rinse and air out bins occasionally, the landlord may also reasonably be expected to perform this task upon regaining possession of the property. It falls within the scope of routine property management and maintenance. Accordingly, no award is made for the bin-related costs.
The Applicant provided an entry inspection report showing the property was in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The exit inspection and accompanying photographs indicate deterioration. While some wear—such as minor scuffs dents and indentations caused by furniture sitting against the wall—is expected over a five-year tenancy and is the landlord’s responsibility (for which they are compensated through rent), other damage appears to be beyond fair wear and tear. Examples include paint stripping caused by the removal of adhesive fixtures installed by the tenant. I therefore award 60% of the painting cost claimed, amounting to $345.00.
Because A1 Property Managers Limited As Agent For Bryan Peter Davidson & Debra Jane Davidson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204193 — Rent arrears at 29 Conductors Road, Prebbleton, Prebbleton 7604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204193 — Rent arrears at 29 Conductors Road, Prebbleton, Prebbleton 7604

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