What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5294067?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5294067?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294067?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12197169-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5294067?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5294067?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294067?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12197169-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

71B Havill Street, Takaro, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5294067 — State of repair

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 5 August 2022.
The tenants filed this application on 27 June 2025. It was still a current tenancy at that time, due to end on 9 July. The landlord agreed to release the tenants from the tenancy a few days earlier, on 4 July, on the condition that the tenants allowing viewings for prospective tenants. The tenants did not accept this condition.
The tenants handed back the keys on 10 July.
The application sought early release from the tenancy, and compensation relating to: a. A problem with cockroaches during the tenancy. b. The cleanliness of the stove at the start of the tenancy.
The hearing took place by phone on 31 July 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Fletcher represented the landlord. Early release
This issue is now moot. The tenancy has ended. Cockroaches
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) does not have any specific provisions relating to responsibility for pest control.
In general: a. Landlords must provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition at the start of the tenancy. b. Landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair during the tenancy. c. Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean during the tenancy. d. Tenants are expected to take reasonable steps to deal with ‘normal’ pests. e. The extent of ‘normal’ pests in a property can vary significantly, depending on environmental factors outside of the control of both the landlord and tenant. f. If there is an extreme pest problem / infestation, the usual expectation is that the landlord and tenant work together to deal with it, unless it is apparent that either the landlord or tenant was responsible for the infestation (for example, a landlord’s failure to maintain the premises or a tenant’s failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and dispose of rubbish).
Ms Shadbolt and Mr Meehan said that they noticed the cockroaches soon after moving in to the property and they raised it with Ms Fletcher at the first inspection in late October 2022.
They said that Ms Fletcher was dismissive of their concerns.
Ms Fletcher recalled the conversation that took place in October 2022. She said that when Ms Shadbolt mentioned the problems with cockroaches, she replied that the previous tenant (who had lived there a long time) had never raised any concerns.
The tenants didn’t raise the issue of cockroaches again until they filed this application.
I acknowledge the tenants’ view that they felt dismissed by Ms Fletcher’s reply. Perhaps a more open or receptive response may have made communication about this problem easier for the tenants.
However, the Tenancy Tribunal can only award a remedy, such as compensation, if it is proven that the landlord failed to meet a legal duty.
The presence of some cockroaches in the house during this nearly three-year tenancy, although unpleasant for the tenants, does not mean that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair or failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. The tenants did not communicate that the problem was serious or on-going, and it is understandable why the landlord did not take further action after that initial, brief, conversation.
There is no basis for an award of compensation under this heading. Stove
The tenants said that the stove and rangehood were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants provided photographs of the stove and rangehood taken on 6 & 9 August 2022, showing some grime on the oven and oven racks, and the rangehood.
Ms Fletcher provided photographs of the stove and rangehood from the entry inspection. The photographs show the oven and rangehood in a clean and tidy condition. The entry report comments that the oven is “very clean”.
Ms Shadbolt commented about the stove at the first inspection in late October 2022. Again, she said that Ms Flecther was dismissive of her concerns, only replying that the property was professionally cleaned before the start of the tenancy.
I accept that both sets of photographs are genuine, although they are difficult to reconcile.
The standard of cleanliness required of landlords at the start of the tenancy is the same as required of tenants at the end – reasonably clean.
The landlord’s photographs of the stove and oven, although numerous and detailed, perhaps do not show some imperfections that Ms Shadbolt discovered when she went to use it for the first time. However, perfection is not the relevant standard.
It is not proven that the stove was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy, and there is no basis for an award of compensation under this heading. Outcome
The tenants are first-time renters, and they made this application because of genuine concerns about issues that arose during their tenancy.
In dismissing this application, I am not dismissing those concerns or making any judgment about the tenants.
I am dismissing the application because, for the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the landlord breached a legal duty under the RTA, and therefore there is no basis to make an award of compensation in this instance.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 5 August 2022.
The tenants filed this application on 27 June 2025. It was still a current tenancy at that time, due to end on 9 July. The landlord agreed to release the tenants from the tenancy a few days earlier, on 4 July, on the condition that the tenants allowing viewings for prospective tenants. The tenants did not accept this condition.
The tenants handed back the keys on 10 July.
The application sought early release from the tenancy, and compensation relating to: a. A problem with cockroaches during the tenancy. b. The cleanliness of the stove at the start of the tenancy.
The hearing took place by phone on 31 July 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Fletcher represented the landlord. Early release
This issue is now moot. The tenancy has ended. Cockroaches
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) does not have any specific provisions relating to responsibility for pest control.
In general: a. Landlords must provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition at the start of the tenancy. b. Landlords must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair during the tenancy. c. Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean during the tenancy. d. Tenants are expected to take reasonable steps to deal with ‘normal’ pests. e. The extent of ‘normal’ pests in a property can vary significantly, depending on environmental factors outside of the control of both the landlord and tenant. f. If there is an extreme pest problem / infestation, the usual expectation is that the landlord and tenant work together to deal with it, unless it is apparent that either the landlord or tenant was responsible for the infestation (for example, a landlord’s failure to maintain the premises or a tenant’s failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and dispose of rubbish).
Ms Shadbolt and Mr Meehan said that they noticed the cockroaches soon after moving in to the property and they raised it with Ms Fletcher at the first inspection in late October 2022.
They said that Ms Fletcher was dismissive of their concerns.
Ms Fletcher recalled the conversation that took place in October 2022. She said that when Ms Shadbolt mentioned the problems with cockroaches, she replied that the previous tenant (who had lived there a long time) had never raised any concerns.
The tenants didn’t raise the issue of cockroaches again until they filed this application.
I acknowledge the tenants’ view that they felt dismissed by Ms Fletcher’s reply. Perhaps a more open or receptive response may have made communication about this problem easier for the tenants.
However, the Tenancy Tribunal can only award a remedy, such as compensation, if it is proven that the landlord failed to meet a legal duty.
The presence of some cockroaches in the house during this nearly three-year tenancy, although unpleasant for the tenants, does not mean that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair or failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition. The tenants did not communicate that the problem was serious or on-going, and it is understandable why the landlord did not take further action after that initial, brief, conversation.
There is no basis for an award of compensation under this heading. Stove
The tenants said that the stove and rangehood were not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants provided photographs of the stove and rangehood taken on 6 & 9 August 2022, showing some grime on the oven and oven racks, and the rangehood.
Ms Fletcher provided photographs of the stove and rangehood from the entry inspection. The photographs show the oven and rangehood in a clean and tidy condition. The entry report comments that the oven is “very clean”.
Ms Shadbolt commented about the stove at the first inspection in late October 2022. Again, she said that Ms Flecther was dismissive of her concerns, only replying that the property was professionally cleaned before the start of the tenancy.
I accept that both sets of photographs are genuine, although they are difficult to reconcile.
The standard of cleanliness required of landlords at the start of the tenancy is the same as required of tenants at the end – reasonably clean.
The landlord’s photographs of the stove and oven, although numerous and detailed, perhaps do not show some imperfections that Ms Shadbolt discovered when she went to use it for the first time. However, perfection is not the relevant standard.
It is not proven that the stove was not reasonably clean at the start of the tenancy, and there is no basis for an award of compensation under this heading. Outcome
The tenants are first-time renters, and they made this application because of genuine concerns about issues that arose during their tenancy.
In dismissing this application, I am not dismissing those concerns or making any judgment about the tenants.
I am dismissing the application because, for the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that the landlord breached a legal duty under the RTA, and therefore there is no basis to make an award of compensation in this instance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294067 — State of repair at 71B Havill Street, Takaro, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294067 — State of repair at 71B Havill Street, Takaro, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions