What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5228932?

The tribunal order states: Renee Allardice is to pay East Coast Realty Limited As Agent For Dave & Bau

How much money was awarded in case 5228932?

Cleaning: $818.45 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $343.25 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $19.91 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $11.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.59 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228932?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228932?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12018624-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5228932?

The tribunal order states: Renee Allardice is to pay East Coast Realty Limited As Agent For Dave & Bau

How much money was awarded in case 5228932?

Cleaning: $818.45 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $343.25 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $19.91 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $11.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $287.59 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228932?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228932?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12018624-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Fleming Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5228932 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228932. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$818.45	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$343.25	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$150.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$11.00	Lock/key replacement
Light bulbs, stove knob	$19.91	Light bulbs, stove knob
Repairs	$287.59	Repairs
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228932. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$818.45	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$343.25	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$150.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$11.00	Lock/key replacement
Light bulbs, stove knob	$19.91	Light bulbs, stove knob
Repairs	$287.59	Repairs
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee

Order

Renee Allardice is to pay East Coast Realty Limited As Agent For Dave & Bau Properties Ltd $57.20, immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3079295-027) to East Coast Realty Limited As Agent For Dave & Bau Properties Ltd immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Allardice, the tenant, Ms Reeves and Mr Third, representing the landlord, all attended the hearing in-person.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 4 March 2025.

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 tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided copies of an Ingoing Inspection Report dated 15 June 2021 and an Outgoing Inspection Report dated 4 March 2025. The landlord also provided a number of close-up photographs of the condition of the inside and outside of the property at the end of the tenancy. Cleaning
The landlord provided an invoice dated 12 March 2025 which showed a cost of $1,410.00 for cleaning and $98.45 for cleaning supplies, for a total of $1,508.45. The invoice showed a total of 47 hours on the line of the invoice related to cleaning. The landlord thought that these 47 hours would likely have included both cleaning and some rubbish removal time. Cleaning was charged at $30.00/hour and the landlord said two cleaners were involved in cleaning the property. The landlord also claimed $125.00 for hiring a rug doctor and for cleaning solution to remove pet stains and smells.
The landlord highlighted photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report showing a dirty oven, dirty toilet, floors and windowsills that were left dirty, sticky hallway stairs, marks on floors and walls, cobwebs, dirty laundry and sink area and other areas and floors/walls that required cleaning. The landlord pointed to the photographs in the Ingoing Inspection Report which they said contrasted the condition of the property with the photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report. The landlord further indicated that, during the tenancy, they had issued breach notices to the tenant for lack of cleanliness at the property, both inside and outside of the property, and said that this was not fully remedied by the tenant by the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said she and her family had cleaned the property thoroughly at the end of the tenancy, that she had used a Karcher industrial vacuum, sourced from her workplace, to vacuum the floors before she left. She said she did not have pets and was not a smoker and so disputed the landlord’s claim for hiring a rug doctor and for cleaning solutions for smells. The tenant disputed that 47 hours of cleaning would have been required by the landlord when she left. She acknowledged that there were some places that perhaps she had not cleaned well, including the toilet, cobwebs and the oven which were dirty. She acknowledged the windowsills had not been cleaned, indicating the peeling paint on them made her nervous to clean them in case she made the peeling worse. The tenant estimated that the most time that would have been needed to rectify that would be around 8 hours maximum of further cleaning.
I note the close-up photographs provided by the landlord which show a really dirty oven, a grimy wooden staircase, dirty windows and most window sills that were very dirty, cobwebs in a few places, dirty walls and floors, dirty kitchen taps and a toilet area that was filthy all over the toilet itself and the toilet floor which was covered in dirt, with an old painting left on the floor. I also noted a dirty laundry sink and laundry floor.
In relation to the landlord’s claim for $125.00 to hire a rug doctor and for cleaning solutions for smells, the tenant said she did not have pets and was not a smoker. I note the quality of the photographs of the carpets in the landlord’s Ingoing Inspection Report was not sufficient to see clearly as to whether there were any stains on the carpets at the start of the tenancy. Further, there was no comment in the comments section of the Outgoing Inspection Report provided of any carpet smells at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence as to any requirement to hire a rug doctor or use special cleaning solution to address any smells and so dismiss the landlord’s claim for this.
I accept from the close-up photographs and the other photographs provided by the landlord that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. From the evidence provided, I find the figure of 47 hours claimed for cleaning to be very excessive, and find that 24 hours of cleaning @ $30.00/hour, the rate charged by the landlord’s cleaners, which comes to $720.00, is reasonable. Given the hourly rate charged of $30.00/hour, I am prepared to allow the landlord’s claim for cleaning supplies of $98.45. Therefore, I award the landlord $818.45 for the cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish removal
The landlord estimated that labour for rubbish removal would have been around 5 hours out of the 47 hours claimed for cleaning in the invoice provided. The tenant thought that 5 hours labour for rubbish removal was excessive and that it would only have taken around 30 minutes to 1 hour for this work.
The landlord said there was some rubbish left inside the property but most of the rubbish left was outside the property. The landlord highlighted the rubbish left at the end of the tenancy, which included dirt left on the floors inside the property in several rooms, kitchen items, laundry items and a number of items left outside, including an old towel, coal bag, wheelbarrow (which the landlord said was subsequently removed by the tenant), rubbish by the gully trap, a tyre brace, old table, power item for the modem and other items .
The tenant acknowledged there were a few rubbish items left at the end of the tenancy, said she removed the wheelbarrow and some foliage, that the bag of coal and tyre brace were not hers and had been left there by somebody else and the broken glass left on the air conditioning unit was from a window that broke due to the rain and wind.
The landlord’s invoice for rubbish removal, which was included with the cleaning and gardening costs was confusing, as it was unclear as to the cost and time expended on the interior versus exterior rubbish removal. For example, the line item for gardening services includes labour for rubbish so it is unclear whether that labour involves clearing all the exterior rubbish or just garden clippings and waste. The landlord believed the cleaning line item for 47 hours of labour would have included rubbish removal of about 5 hours also, but this is unclear from the invoice.
From the evidence provided of the rubbish left at the premises at the end of the tenancy, I find that 2 hours of rubbish removal of the interior rubbish is reasonable at a rate of $30.00/hour, the rate indicated in the landlord’s invoice. I find that 3 hours of rubbish removal labour time to clear the exterior rubbish (not garden clippings or waste) @ $30.00/hour, is also reasonable, given the evidence provided. Therefore, I find a total of 5 hours for rubbish removal from the interior and exterior of the property @ $30.00/hour, for a total of $150.00, to be reasonable. To be clear, this award for rubbish removal both inside and outside of the property is a separate award from the cleaning and gardening claims and is based on my assessment of what was required from the evidence provided. Gardening
The landlord claimed that the gardens were not properly maintained at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice dated 12 March 2025 and claimed for 6 hours of gardening services and rubbish labour time at $210.00, rubbish removal and green waste disposal dump fees of $68.25 and trailer hire of $65.00.
The landlord pointed to photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report showing many areas around the edge of the garden that were overgrown and several areas requiring weeding. The tenant had mowed the main part of the front lawn but there appeared to have been little weeding completed and no effort to cut the largely overgrown periphery of most of the property. There was also an area of the garden that was left completely overgrown with large weed plants, from the photographs provided. The tenant acknowledged that her weeding had not been the best. She thought 2 hours of work would have been sufficient to do the remaining gardening work left at the end of the tenancy. The tenant pointed out the gardens were not provided in pristine and well-maintained condition at the start of the tenancy and provided photographs of this. I consider this a separate issue which the tenant could have sorted out with the landlord at the start of the tenancy in 2021.
Given the photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report of most of the garden having overgrown greenery around the edges, one large area of garden being completely overgrown with large weed plants, and several areas needing weeding, I find the landlord’s claim for 6 hours of labour and for the green waste dump fee to be reasonable, given the evidence. To be clear, I find the 6 hours of labour claimed in the landlord’s invoice to likely be for just gardening services and the reference to ‘rubbish’ in the gardening line item to likely mean garden waste and clippings. As such, I award the landlord $210.00 labour for gardening work required, $68.25 for the rubbish removal and green waste dump fees, and $65.00 for trailer hire, for a total of $343.25. Key
The landlord said the tenant did not return all the keys. The tenant admitted she had not returned one of the keys and accepted the cost claimed of $11.00 to replace one of the keys. Light bulbs/stove knob
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The landlord had to replace 3 light bulbs at a cost of $8.58 plus GST, coming to $9.86, and had to replace a missing stove knob at a cost of $8.74 plus GST, coming to $10.05, both of which the tenant accepted and agreed to pay. Therefore, I award the landlord a total of $19.91 to replace the light bulbs and stove knob.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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.
The landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A hole in a bedroom wall and screw holes in the lounge wall had to be patched and painted, at a cost of $25.00 plus GST coming to $28.75 for materials. The tenant admitted these claims and agreed to pay them both. b. The landlord claimed the tenant broke the towel rail which had to be replaced. The tenant said the towel rail was noted in the Entry Inspection Report as being loose and that it had come down on its own a while before she left and she had not told the landlord about this. She denied responsibility for this. The tenant is responsible for advising the landlord of any damage to items in the property in a timely manner. Even though the towel rail was noted as being loose in the Entry Inspection Report, because the tenant did not report the towel rail coming down to the landlord during the tenancy, I find the tenant is responsible to make good this cost to replace it. The landlord claimed $25.08 plus GST, coming to $28.84 to replace the towel rail and provided an invoice in this regard. I find this to be a reasonable cost and award this to the landlord to replace the towel rail. c. The landlord said the downpipe outside the property which came down, was likely pulled down deliberately by the tenant and claimed for the cost of repairing this. I note communication from the landlord to the tenant during the tenancy, a copy of which was provided, where the landlord asked the tenant to explain why the downpipe was down. There was not a copy of the tenant’s response provided. However, the tenant said at the hearing that the downpipe came down on its own, that there would be no reason for anyone in her family to pull down the downpipe deliberately, and that the downpipe coming down suddenly had contributed to a window blowing out and smashing. The tenant believed this was a maintenance issue for the landlord. There was correspondence between the parties provided about this issue. I find there is insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to prove that the downpipe coming down was caused by the tenant, despite it occurring during the tenancy. Therefore, I dismiss this claim. d. The landlord claimed that the gas meter cover had to be resecured at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said the gas workers had left the cover off. The landlord said the gas workers are not legally allowed to do that. I find there is insufficient evidence from the landlord to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. e. I note the invoice for repairs dated 24 March 2025 provided by the landlord included a labour cost of $180.00 plus GST and mileage of $20.00 plus GST. Given I have allowed the landlord’s claims for repairing the holes in the bedroom and lounge walls, replacing the towel rail and replacing the stove knob and light bulbs (also included in this labour charge but dealt with separately above as missing chattels), I find the labour cost of $180.00 plus GST, coming to $207.00 and the mileage fee of $20.00 plus GST, coming to $23.00, for a sub-total of $230.00 to be a reasonable cost for labour and mileage for the repair jobs that I have found needed to be completed. Thus, I allow the landlord $230.00 for the labour and mileage for the repairs as found above. f. Therefore, the total award for repairs dealt with in this section, to the landlord is $287.59. Windows g. The landlord claimed the tenant damaged two windows at the property during the tenancy and said the windows the tenant damaged were in the bedrooms. They said one window flew out of a bedroom around January or February 2025 and hit the neighbour’s roof and the neighbour had told them of this, not the tenant. The landlord said the other window broken was discovered on a routine inspection in a bedroom around October or November 2024. The landlord said they saw wet cardboard in the broken window and there was a mattress to the side of it, that the frame had blown out. h. The landlord did not provide photographs of either of these broken windows, as they said they were both repaired before the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice from a glass repair company in the amount of $984.31 to repair two wooden windows and rehang them with a new casement sash. The glass repairer’s invoice stated that in their opinion, “the most likely reason for the windows coming out is that they were not closed and latched properly.” The glass repairer’s invoice did not state the rooms in which the two windows were repaired by them. i. The landlord clarified that the photographs of some old window frames left outside the property at the end of the tenancy, were not the bedroom windows for which they were claiming. j. The tenant was adamant that there were issues with windows in the lounge and bathroom, not any of the bedroom windows. She said the latch on the lounge window was not great and that the downpipe had come down and took out the window in the wind and rain. She believed this was due to a lack of maintenance on the landlord’s part. The tenant provided copies of emails and texts between her and the landlord where she raised issues about some windowpanes that had come out and asked and followed up with the landlord about what the landlord was doing to repair window. It was not made clear in this correspondence provided prior to the hearing, however, as to which room the window/s referred to were located. k. The tenant’s brother, Shaun Allardice, gave evidence at the hearing, mainly about the condition of the property as seen by him at the start and end of the tenancy. He said the property was in terrible condition and the lawns were not done, in his view, at the start of the tenancy. However, when asked if he had checked the condition of the oven, toilet or windowsills, for example, at the end of the tenancy, he acknowledged he did not look at any of these areas, which had been identified clearly as very dirty in the landlord’s evidence. Mr Allardice’s evidence in relation to the broken windows was based on what his sister had told him about them. He confirmed he never saw a broken window, just the damaged downpipe and had had nothing really to do with the windows. Unfortunately, Mr Allardice’s evidence did not add anything to the discussion about the broken windows, as he had not seen any broken windows, only had been told by his sister about them, which is hearsay evidence at best. l. I note the comments in the landlord’s Ingoing Inspection report that there was maintenance required in bedroom 2 as 1 window was not closing, and that there was a cracked windowpane in bedroom 3. There was no evidence provided by the landlord as to whether the landlord addressed these issues during the tenancy. Nor was it clarified by the landlord as to which bedrooms were the ones in which the two windows claimed were broken. m. As the landlord did not provide any photographs of the broken windows during the tenancy, as the parties disputed where the broken windows in question were located, as the glass repairer’s invoice also did not identify where the windows repaired were located, given the correspondence between the parties about some maintenance issues with windows at the property, and given the comments in the Ingoing Inspection Report about windows in two of the bedrooms, raising some possible maintenance issues with some of the bedroom windows, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence about the claim for the repair of the windows and so dismiss this claim. n. The damage found is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3079295-027) to East Coast Realty Limited As Agent For Dave & Bau Properties Ltd immediately. Filing fee
As the landlord has been partially successful with their claim, I allow the landlord the refund of the filing fee. The tenant did not claim refund of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228932 — Cleanliness at 11 Fleming Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228932 — Cleanliness at 11 Fleming Street, Outer Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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