What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5245291?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5245291?

Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $371.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245291?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11959354-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5245291?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5245291?

Cleaning: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $371.43 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245291?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11959354-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Mill Road, Vogeltown, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245291 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245291 — net $1,068.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 March 2025	$371.43	Rent arrears to 17 March 2025
Rubbish removal	$400.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning and gardening work	$270.00	Cleaning and gardening work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,068.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,068.43

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
Rosemarie Campbell must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Natalie Jones $1068.43 immediately, being:

Reasons

Only the property manager of the landlord attended the hearing that took place today by way of a video conference.
The tenant did not attend. When she did not attend the video conference, I telephoned her twice but her telephone was not answered. I am satisfied she has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The tenancy has ended, and the landlord seeks rent arrears and compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 17 March 2025. The tenancy was terminated by way of an earlier order of the Tribunal which found the tenancy had been abandoned ([2025] NZTT 5186971).
The landlord provided rent records that prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
This amount ordered takes into account the fact that the bond has been already paid to the landlord from the Bond Centre and that this has already been allocated by the landlord towards the rent arrears.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Landlords should expect to undertake some extra cleaning following a tenancy.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
It is clear that a significant amount of rubbish had been left at the premises. The premises was seemingly simply left with many items strewn inside and outside. Some of the items were large, like a chest freezer, metal tool type box, couches, what looks like bed ends, chairs, play equipment and bookshelves. Other items were smaller and at times scattered like toys, numerous kitchen items left in cupboards, bags, pantry food items, kitchen items, toiletries, numerous cardboard boxes and hangers. Dishes were left in the dishwasher.
With items left throughout the property and from the photographs, it is clear that little attempt, if any, was made to clean the premises. I accept that once the items were removed the premises would have needed cleaning throughout including the oven and drawers/cupboards throughout the premises. This is a three bedroomed home with two bathrooms.
The landlord says that the property owner did all of this work herself.
At the hearing I was told by the property manager that the items left at the premises were disposed of in three different ways: donation, refuse station (“dump”) and skip.
At the hearing the landlord sought $800 for rubbish removal. I asked for a breakdown of this as the claim was only supported by an invoice rendered by the landlord owner and I was advised by the property manager that the labour cost claimed was $400 at $50 an hour and that there was skip hire of $400. I was told $1,200 was for cleaning and the labour for the removal of certain items to the refuse station/donation.
The property manager did not have an invoice for skip hire or waste station costs at the hearing but assured me this could be obtained so I allowed the landlord until 3pm to provide this and said that if this was done then I would then consider this evidence when making my decision.
The landlord has not filed skip or waste station invoices but by the 3pm deadline filed two new “tax invoices” from the landlord (owner) made out to the tenant – They set out that there is no skip hire or waste station cost.
Instead, they explain that the landlord owner hired a truck (at no cost) and dumped the rubbish at no cost on a farm at no cost. Therefore, there is no skip hire or waste station costs despite the property manager asserting this at the hearing.
Property managers and landlords should be mindful not to mislead the Tribunal. It can have serious consequences and also can undermine credibility.
Compensation is awarded to put a party back into the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. The skip and waste disposal costs as set out in the hearing are clearly incorrect in the light of the new information filed. Rubbish was dumped at the farm and a truck hired at no cost.
This means that the landlord in fact incurred no cost to hire the truck or dispose of the rubbish, so there has been no loss, and no award is made in respect of this
Turning to labour, there is some updated information after the hearing filed by the landlord, again, contradicting earlier submissions. I have considered the reasonable amount of labour overall in respect of all the items evidenced as left at the premises and disposed of.
The amounts ordered by the Tribunal where an owner has undertaken cleaning and repairs themselves varies. Cleaning may be ordered at $30 an hour, whereas work would usually require a tradesman or rubbish removal may attract a higher fee.
Rubbish removal of large items is often contracted out. The time taken for rubbish removal is often more than expected.
In relation to rubbish and labour costs I find that while the overall the hours claimed by the tenant seem slightly high the hourly rate charged is low. Overall, I consider it reasonable to award $400 for labour.
In respect of the cleaning, based on the evidence before me, I consider an amount of $210 to be reasonable. At a rate of $30 an hour this means the owner would have had 7 additional hours (on top of the rubbish removal) to clean the home once it was empty and free from items.
I consider that the kitchen generally plus the oven and the bathrooms would have been more time consuming than the other areas to clean and I accept that the outside would have needed some limited sweeping once rubbish was removed.
The amount sought by the landlord of “deep cleaning” at 8 hours a day for 4 days is not supported and is somewhat unrealistic based on the probative evidence before me. It is likely this work would have taken the level of cleanliness above that which the tenant was required to leave it.
The landlord also claims 8 hours at $30 per hour for work done to the garden by the landlord. I accept that the evidence showed a number of areas that needed weeding. I therefore award the landlord $60 for this work which is a sum I consider reasonable to bring the garden to the necessary standard on the evidence before me.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee and suppression
Because The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Natalie Jones has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Name suppression was not sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245291 — net $1,068.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 March 2025	$371.43	Rent arrears to 17 March 2025
Rubbish removal	$400.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning and gardening work	$270.00	Cleaning and gardening work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,068.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,068.43

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
Rosemarie Campbell must pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Natalie Jones $1068.43 immediately, being:

Reasons

Only the property manager of the landlord attended the hearing that took place today by way of a video conference.
The tenant did not attend. When she did not attend the video conference, I telephoned her twice but her telephone was not answered. I am satisfied she has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The tenancy has ended, and the landlord seeks rent arrears and compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 17 March 2025. The tenancy was terminated by way of an earlier order of the Tribunal which found the tenancy had been abandoned ([2025] NZTT 5186971).
The landlord provided rent records that prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
This amount ordered takes into account the fact that the bond has been already paid to the landlord from the Bond Centre and that this has already been allocated by the landlord towards the rent arrears.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Landlords should expect to undertake some extra cleaning following a tenancy.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
It is clear that a significant amount of rubbish had been left at the premises. The premises was seemingly simply left with many items strewn inside and outside. Some of the items were large, like a chest freezer, metal tool type box, couches, what looks like bed ends, chairs, play equipment and bookshelves. Other items were smaller and at times scattered like toys, numerous kitchen items left in cupboards, bags, pantry food items, kitchen items, toiletries, numerous cardboard boxes and hangers. Dishes were left in the dishwasher.
With items left throughout the property and from the photographs, it is clear that little attempt, if any, was made to clean the premises. I accept that once the items were removed the premises would have needed cleaning throughout including the oven and drawers/cupboards throughout the premises. This is a three bedroomed home with two bathrooms.
The landlord says that the property owner did all of this work herself.
At the hearing I was told by the property manager that the items left at the premises were disposed of in three different ways: donation, refuse station (“dump”) and skip.
At the hearing the landlord sought $800 for rubbish removal. I asked for a breakdown of this as the claim was only supported by an invoice rendered by the landlord owner and I was advised by the property manager that the labour cost claimed was $400 at $50 an hour and that there was skip hire of $400. I was told $1,200 was for cleaning and the labour for the removal of certain items to the refuse station/donation.
The property manager did not have an invoice for skip hire or waste station costs at the hearing but assured me this could be obtained so I allowed the landlord until 3pm to provide this and said that if this was done then I would then consider this evidence when making my decision.
The landlord has not filed skip or waste station invoices but by the 3pm deadline filed two new “tax invoices” from the landlord (owner) made out to the tenant – They set out that there is no skip hire or waste station cost.
Instead, they explain that the landlord owner hired a truck (at no cost) and dumped the rubbish at no cost on a farm at no cost. Therefore, there is no skip hire or waste station costs despite the property manager asserting this at the hearing.
Property managers and landlords should be mindful not to mislead the Tribunal. It can have serious consequences and also can undermine credibility.
Compensation is awarded to put a party back into the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. The skip and waste disposal costs as set out in the hearing are clearly incorrect in the light of the new information filed. Rubbish was dumped at the farm and a truck hired at no cost.
This means that the landlord in fact incurred no cost to hire the truck or dispose of the rubbish, so there has been no loss, and no award is made in respect of this
Turning to labour, there is some updated information after the hearing filed by the landlord, again, contradicting earlier submissions. I have considered the reasonable amount of labour overall in respect of all the items evidenced as left at the premises and disposed of.
The amounts ordered by the Tribunal where an owner has undertaken cleaning and repairs themselves varies. Cleaning may be ordered at $30 an hour, whereas work would usually require a tradesman or rubbish removal may attract a higher fee.
Rubbish removal of large items is often contracted out. The time taken for rubbish removal is often more than expected.
In relation to rubbish and labour costs I find that while the overall the hours claimed by the tenant seem slightly high the hourly rate charged is low. Overall, I consider it reasonable to award $400 for labour.
In respect of the cleaning, based on the evidence before me, I consider an amount of $210 to be reasonable. At a rate of $30 an hour this means the owner would have had 7 additional hours (on top of the rubbish removal) to clean the home once it was empty and free from items.
I consider that the kitchen generally plus the oven and the bathrooms would have been more time consuming than the other areas to clean and I accept that the outside would have needed some limited sweeping once rubbish was removed.
The amount sought by the landlord of “deep cleaning” at 8 hours a day for 4 days is not supported and is somewhat unrealistic based on the probative evidence before me. It is likely this work would have taken the level of cleanliness above that which the tenant was required to leave it.
The landlord also claims 8 hours at $30 per hour for work done to the garden by the landlord. I accept that the evidence showed a number of areas that needed weeding. I therefore award the landlord $60 for this work which is a sum I consider reasonable to bring the garden to the necessary standard on the evidence before me.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee and suppression
Because The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Natalie Jones has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Name suppression was not sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245291 — Rent arrears at 51 Mill Road, Vogeltown, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245291 — Rent arrears at 51 Mill Road, Vogeltown, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

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 tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions