What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5234313?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Patricia Stodart and Jesse Kolk must pay Metro Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5234313?

Cleaning: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,161.50 awarded to landlord; Remove Oil From Driveway: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,665.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234313?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12046727-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5234313?

The tribunal order states: Rachel Patricia Stodart and Jesse Kolk must pay Metro Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5234313?

Cleaning: $322.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $1,161.50 awarded to landlord; Remove Oil From Driveway: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,665.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234313?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12046727-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

56 Grenville Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5234313 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234313 — net $3,587.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 May 2025	$3,665.00	Rent arrears to 6 May 2025
Carpet cleaning	$322.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal; lawns and gardens	$1,161.50	Rubbish removal; lawns and gardens
Remove oil from driveway	$92.00	Remove oil from driveway
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,587.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,587.50

Order

Rachel Patricia Stodart and Jesse Kolk must pay Metro Property Management Limited - as agent for MMK Investments Ltd $3,587.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5444410-004) to Metro Property Management Limited - as agent for MMK Investments Ltd immediately.
The application to repair a window in the laundry and to replace bedroom curtains is dismissed.
The application for the repair cost of a cracked basin in the vanity unit is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms White and Ms Williams represented the landlord. Mr Kolk attended by phone for the tenants. Ms Stodart was unable to attend due to illness. She sought an adjournment, but I proceeded with the hearing as Mr Kolk was able to attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord withdrew a claim for the repair of a cracked basin in the vanity unit.
The tenants have applied for compensation for the effects of rodent infestation which they say caused damage to their possessions and impacted their enjoyment of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 6 May 2025 as recorded in the Tribunal’s adjournment order dated 14 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy.
Mr Kolk did not accept the amount of rent owing. He said the tenants had been advised by Tenancy Services to only pay minimal rent due to the rodent infestation.
It is most unlikely that the tenants received that advice from Tenancy Services. Rent is due regardless. If there are any issues arising from landlord breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) they are dealt with by orders for compensation and/or exemplary damages, seldom by way of a rent reduction or deduction.
Without an agreement between the parties that the rent will be reduced, the tenant is liable to continue paying the weekly rent as set in the tenancy agreement. There was no agreement to reduce the rent in this case.

Did the tenants 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) RTA.
The landlord has claimed for cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal and gardening.
I find these claims proved by the documentary evidence the landlord produced, including photos.
This was a tenancy that was assigned to these tenants; they took over the tenancy from another tenant.
However, their statutory responsibilities at the end of the tenancy remained. Even if the premises (including the lawns and gardens) were not in a good state when they took over the tenancy, that is something they should have addressed with the previous tenant. Once the tenancy was assigned, their responsibilities under the RTA came into effect.
I have reduced the landlord’s claim for cleaning. A tenant is only required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean condition, not clean to a state where a new tenancy can immediately start.
The photos produced in evidence show that the tenants almost met their statutory responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean. But some further cleaning was reasonably required.
The evidence also shows that some rubbish removal was needed. Mr Kolk said that homeless people from nearby abandoned properties put rubbish in the council bins. However, it was the tenants’ responsibility to remove all rubbish when they vacated and to return the bins empty to where they were kept.
Mr Kolk also said he had spent countless hours at the start of the tenancy removing rubbish and tidying the grounds. Again, that is something that should have been addressed with the departing tenant when the tenancy was assigned.
Mr Kolk said that Ms Stodart’s boss cleaned the carpets. The tenants kept a dog at the premises. The photos show dog hair in places.
When a tenant keeps a pet inside, the Tribunal usually considers it reasonable for the landlord to have the carpets professionally cleaned to fully remove pet hair and allergens before another tenant takes possession.
Mr Kolk accepted the landlord’s claim for removing oil from the driveway caused by the tenants’ flatmate. I have marked that claim *.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photos and by the evidence Ms White gave.

Are the tenants responsible for 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.
The claim for the cost of curtain replacement in the room off the lounge cannot succeed. The landlord does not know the age of the curtains. The in-going photos suggest that were quite old.
The Tribunal needs to know the age of a replacement chattels so it can properly take account of fair wear and tear, and betterment. As these curtains might (due to age) be considered fully depreciated, the Tribunal does not find this claim proved.
The claim for the cracked window in the laundry is also problematic. When the tenancy was assigned, the landlord had some responsibility to assess claims for damage and either reach an agreement with the former tenant (a bond deduction for example) or record an agreement with the in-going tenants to take over responsibility for the repairs.
Also, the landlord has a statutory duty to promptly repair damage, especially damage to a window that could pose a risk to safety.
Mr Kolk confirmed that the window was cracked when the tenants moved into the premises having had the tenancy assigned to them. They did not cause the damage. I accept that. In the absence of a clear agreement that they assumed responsibility for the repair cost, I dismiss this claim for lack of proof. The tenants’ application
The tenants seek compensation for what they say was rodent infestation (mice) which they told the landlord about.
The landlord responded by having a pest destruction company attend to assess the problem.
The tenants did not want baits laid because of their dog. They were provided with traps which they say were only successful to a small degree.
Mr Kolk said he believed that the cause of the mice was rubbish build up at 3 neighbouring abandoned properties, used by homeless people.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The Tribunal cannot award compensation to the tenants in this case because there has been no landlord breach of their statutory responsibilities.
That mice became a problem due to the state of neighbouring properties was not something the landlord had any control over. It was for the tenants to find a way to manage the problem. The landlord agreed to enlist the help of a pest destruction company, but it was no obliged to given that the cause of the mouse infestation was beyond the landlord’s control.
The tenants’ application is dismissed. Result
The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for curtains replacement and a window repair is dismissed.
The tenants must pay the landlord $3,587.50. which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the landlord’s application.
The bond will be paid to the landlord. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234313 — net $3,587.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 May 2025	$3,665.00	Rent arrears to 6 May 2025
Carpet cleaning	$322.00	Carpet cleaning
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal; lawns and gardens	$1,161.50	Rubbish removal; lawns and gardens
Remove oil from driveway	$92.00	Remove oil from driveway
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,587.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,587.50

Order

Rachel Patricia Stodart and Jesse Kolk must pay Metro Property Management Limited - as agent for MMK Investments Ltd $3,587.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 (5444410-004) to Metro Property Management Limited - as agent for MMK Investments Ltd immediately.
The application to repair a window in the laundry and to replace bedroom curtains is dismissed.
The application for the repair cost of a cracked basin in the vanity unit is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms White and Ms Williams represented the landlord. Mr Kolk attended by phone for the tenants. Ms Stodart was unable to attend due to illness. She sought an adjournment, but I proceeded with the hearing as Mr Kolk was able to attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord withdrew a claim for the repair of a cracked basin in the vanity unit.
The tenants have applied for compensation for the effects of rodent infestation which they say caused damage to their possessions and impacted their enjoyment of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 6 May 2025 as recorded in the Tribunal’s adjournment order dated 14 May 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing at the end of the tenancy.
Mr Kolk did not accept the amount of rent owing. He said the tenants had been advised by Tenancy Services to only pay minimal rent due to the rodent infestation.
It is most unlikely that the tenants received that advice from Tenancy Services. Rent is due regardless. If there are any issues arising from landlord breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) they are dealt with by orders for compensation and/or exemplary damages, seldom by way of a rent reduction or deduction.
Without an agreement between the parties that the rent will be reduced, the tenant is liable to continue paying the weekly rent as set in the tenancy agreement. There was no agreement to reduce the rent in this case.

Did the tenants 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) RTA.
The landlord has claimed for cleaning, carpet cleaning, rubbish removal and gardening.
I find these claims proved by the documentary evidence the landlord produced, including photos.
This was a tenancy that was assigned to these tenants; they took over the tenancy from another tenant.
However, their statutory responsibilities at the end of the tenancy remained. Even if the premises (including the lawns and gardens) were not in a good state when they took over the tenancy, that is something they should have addressed with the previous tenant. Once the tenancy was assigned, their responsibilities under the RTA came into effect.
I have reduced the landlord’s claim for cleaning. A tenant is only required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean condition, not clean to a state where a new tenancy can immediately start.
The photos produced in evidence show that the tenants almost met their statutory responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean. But some further cleaning was reasonably required.
The evidence also shows that some rubbish removal was needed. Mr Kolk said that homeless people from nearby abandoned properties put rubbish in the council bins. However, it was the tenants’ responsibility to remove all rubbish when they vacated and to return the bins empty to where they were kept.
Mr Kolk also said he had spent countless hours at the start of the tenancy removing rubbish and tidying the grounds. Again, that is something that should have been addressed with the departing tenant when the tenancy was assigned.
Mr Kolk said that Ms Stodart’s boss cleaned the carpets. The tenants kept a dog at the premises. The photos show dog hair in places.
When a tenant keeps a pet inside, the Tribunal usually considers it reasonable for the landlord to have the carpets professionally cleaned to fully remove pet hair and allergens before another tenant takes possession.
Mr Kolk accepted the landlord’s claim for removing oil from the driveway caused by the tenants’ flatmate. I have marked that claim *.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photos and by the evidence Ms White gave.

Are the tenants responsible for 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.
The claim for the cost of curtain replacement in the room off the lounge cannot succeed. The landlord does not know the age of the curtains. The in-going photos suggest that were quite old.
The Tribunal needs to know the age of a replacement chattels so it can properly take account of fair wear and tear, and betterment. As these curtains might (due to age) be considered fully depreciated, the Tribunal does not find this claim proved.
The claim for the cracked window in the laundry is also problematic. When the tenancy was assigned, the landlord had some responsibility to assess claims for damage and either reach an agreement with the former tenant (a bond deduction for example) or record an agreement with the in-going tenants to take over responsibility for the repairs.
Also, the landlord has a statutory duty to promptly repair damage, especially damage to a window that could pose a risk to safety.
Mr Kolk confirmed that the window was cracked when the tenants moved into the premises having had the tenancy assigned to them. They did not cause the damage. I accept that. In the absence of a clear agreement that they assumed responsibility for the repair cost, I dismiss this claim for lack of proof. The tenants’ application
The tenants seek compensation for what they say was rodent infestation (mice) which they told the landlord about.
The landlord responded by having a pest destruction company attend to assess the problem.
The tenants did not want baits laid because of their dog. They were provided with traps which they say were only successful to a small degree.
Mr Kolk said he believed that the cause of the mice was rubbish build up at 3 neighbouring abandoned properties, used by homeless people.
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The Tribunal cannot award compensation to the tenants in this case because there has been no landlord breach of their statutory responsibilities.
That mice became a problem due to the state of neighbouring properties was not something the landlord had any control over. It was for the tenants to find a way to manage the problem. The landlord agreed to enlist the help of a pest destruction company, but it was no obliged to given that the cause of the mouse infestation was beyond the landlord’s control.
The tenants’ application is dismissed. Result
The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for curtains replacement and a window repair is dismissed.
The tenants must pay the landlord $3,587.50. which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the landlord’s application.
The bond will be paid to the landlord. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 Name suppression
On my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234313 — Rent arrears at 56 Grenville Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234313 — Rent arrears at 56 Grenville Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Are the tenants responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions