Tribunal dismisses landlord's claims for gas and lawn maintenance, allows firewood claim
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claims for gas bottle refills and lawn maintenance, but allowed the claim for firewood replacement. The Tribunal ruled that the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the claims for gas bottles and lawn maintenance, but found it fair and reasonable to allow the claim for firewood replacement.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to reimbursement for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation, but the landlord must prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.
📖 What the law says
This section generally states that the landlord is responsible for paying all ongoing costs related to the rental property, such as rates and insurance. However, it also specifies that the tenant is responsible for certain costs incurred during their tenancy, like electricity or gas charges, and water charges if there's a separate meter and the agreement mentioned it.
This section guides the Tenancy Tribunal to resolve disputes between landlords and tenants fairly and quickly. It allows the Tribunal to decide cases based on general legal principles and the overall fairness and justice of the situation, rather than being strictly bound by technical legal rules.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claims for gas bottle refills and lawn maintenance, but allowed the claim for firewood replacement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claims for gas bottle refills and lawn maintenance, but allowed the claim for firewood replacement. The Tribunal found that the landlord failed to prove the claims for gas bottles and lawn maintenance on the balance of probabilities, whereas the claim for firewood was considered fair and reasonable given the circumstances.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112330 1
[2025] NZTT 5112330
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: 2 [NAME], Putaruru, Putaruru 3411
ORDER
1. [NAME] to pay [NAME] $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Tenant Outgoings: firewood $200.00 Total award $200.00 Bond $200.00 $888.19
2. The [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $1,088.19 (3407028-003) immediately apportioned as follows:
[NAME]: $200.00
[NAME]: $888.19
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112330 2
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The landlord has applied for outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
3. As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
4. As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that:
…[L]ike 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 of 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.
5. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
OUTGOINGS
6. Section 39(3) RTA states:
The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities.
7. The landlord seeks compensation for the following outgoings:
a. Gas bottle refill (x2): $266.69
b. Firewood replacement: $400.00
8. I deal with each issue in turn below.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112330 3
Gas bottle refill
9. The landlord gave evidence that two full gas bottles were provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims they were both empty at the end of the tenancy and had to be refilled at a cost of $266.69. The landlord did not submit an invoice for this amount.
10. The tenant gave evidence that the gas bottles were nearly empty at the beginning of the tenancy and they had to pay for their refill approximately 5 weeks after the tenancy began. The tenant submitted a copy of their partner’s bank statement, which shows a payment of $282.84 was made to [COMPANY] on 6 October 2022. The tenancy began on 20 August 2022, which is 6.5 weeks prior.
11. The tenant also submitted an email from Vector sent on 16 September 2022 which states that the cost to refill each gas bottle is $144.02 including GST and delivery.
12. The tenant gave evidence that they left one full gas bottle and a second bottle almost empty at the end of the tenancy.
Analysis
13. The tenant is responsible for paying for the consumption of gas used during the tenancy.
14. The landlord bares the onus of proving that two full gas tanks were supplied to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy on the balance of probabilities. I find that the landlord has not done this.
15. The tenant denies that two full gas tanks were supplied to them at the beginning of the tenancy and the landlord has not submitted any evidence to support the claim that this is incorrect. The tenancy agreement and pre-inspection report do not mention anything about the gas bottled and the landlord did not submit an invoice for the filling of the two gas bottles shortly before the tenancy began.
16. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, I am left unsure about whether two full gas bottle were supplied to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy.
17. This claim is dismissed.
Firewood
18. The landlord gave evidence that approximately 5m² of firewood was provided to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims there was nothing but sawdust left at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation of $400.00 to replace the firewood. The landlord did not submit
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112330 4
an invoice for this amount but gave evidence that the cost of firewood is approximately $150.00 per square metre.
19. The tenant accepts that firewood was provided to them at the beginning of the tenancy, but submits that the amount provided was only approximately 2m² not 5m². The tenant accepts that no firewood was left at the end of the tenancy, but gave evidence that this was not brought up during the final inspection. Further, the tenant claims that the requirement that they replenish the firewood is included as an addendum to the tenancy agreement, which they never signed.
Analysis
20. Firewood is an outgoing and therefore, the tenant is responsible for paying for its use during the tenancy.
21. The tenant accepts that some firewood was provided to them at the beginning of the tenancy and not replaced at the end. They must pay the landlord some compensation for their use of the firewood provided.
22. The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that approximately 5m² of firewood was provided to the tenant. No photographs were submitted of the firewood at the beginning of the tenancy and nothing is noted in the pre- inspection report. The landlord has also not proven the amount they claim to have spent replenishing the firewood, as they claim to have paid cash and no invoice was submitted.
23. The Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that promotes the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes.1 In the circumstances of this case, I consider it fair and reasonable that the tenant pay the landlord $200.00 to cover the cost of replacing the firewood used by them during the tenancy.
24. The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the firewood is granted for $200.00.
CLEANING AND LAWNS/GARDEN MAINTENANCE
The Law
25. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
26. The term “premises” includes any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.2 The requirement to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the property.
1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112330 5
27. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable.3 It does not mean commercially clean,4 spotless5 or to a hotel or motel standard.6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected.7
28. The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the inside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because the oven was dirty. The landlord seeks compensation of $30.00 to cover the cost of cleaning supplies.
29. The landlord also submits the tenant did not leave the lawns and garden reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord seeks compensation of $392.00 to cover their labour ($320.00) and green waste removal ($72.00).
30. I deal with the claim for cleaning first and lawns/garden maintenance second.
Cleaning
Evidence and submissions of the parties
31. The landlord accepts that the inside of the premises was left in a clean and tidy state, but gave evidence that the oven was very dirty. The landlord claims they purchased oven cleaner and spent a couple of hours cleaning the oven. The landlord did not submit any photographs of the oven or an invoice for the purchase of oven cleaner.
32. The tenant gave evidence strongly disputing that the oven was left in a dirty condition. The tenant gave evidence that their partner used to work as a commercial cleaner and the two of them undertook a thorough cleaning of the property, including the oven, at the end of the tenancy.
Analysis
33. The landlord bares the onus of proving that the tenant left the premises in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition on the balance of probabilities. I have doubts about whether failing to clean an oven renders an otherwise clean and tidy property unreasonably clean and tidy however, the landlord has not proven that the tenant did not clean the oven. The tenant gave evidence that they did and the landlord has not submitted any evidence such as photographs to prove otherwise.
2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112330 6
34. The landlord’s claim for compensation of $30.00 for the purchase of oven cleaner is dismissed.
Lawns/garden maintenance
Evidence and submissions of the parties
35. The landlord gave evidence that the grass and trees were overgrown at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims they spent two full days, together with a friend, attending to the lawns and garden. The landlord seeks compensation for their time and labour of $320.00, as well as the cost of disposing of the green waste, which they say was $72.00, although no invoice was submitted.
36. The tenant strongly denies that they left the lawns and garden in an untidy state. The tenant gave evidence that they regularly mowed the lawns during the tenancy and left them in a very tidy state at the end.
37. The tenant gave further evidence that they previously asked the landlord for permission to prune some trees, but this was declined. The tenant submits that pruning trees falls outside of the ambit of their responsibility and is the responsibility of the landlord. The landlord accepts this is the case, but submits that the lawns were not left in a clean and tidy state.
Analysis
38. The landlord has not proven that the tenant left the lawns in an unreasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. The tenant denies that this was the case and the landlord has not submitted any supporting evidence such as photographs or an exit inspection report proving otherwise. In these circumstances, I am unsure about the state of the lawns at the end of the tenancy.
39. This claim is dismissed.
BOND
40. A bond of $2,100.00 was paid by the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. A balance of $1,088.69 remains with the [COMPANY].
41. The landlord is to receive a refund of $200.00 from the bond and the tenant is to receive a refund of $888.19.
FILING FEE
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112330 7
42. I do not consider the landlord has been substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the landlord the filing fee.
[NAME]
30 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112330 8
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112330 9
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Tribunal considered it fair and reasonable for the tenant to pay $200.00 to cover the cost of replacing the firewood.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord did not provide evidence to support their claim that the tenant's denial about gas bottles was incorrect.
- The landlord did not submit an invoice for refilling the gas bottles before the tenancy began.
- The landlord did not prove the amount spent replenishing the firewood, as no invoice was submitted for the cash payment.
- The landlord did not prove that the tenant left the oven dirty, as no photographs or invoice for cleaner were submitted.
- The landlord did not submit supporting evidence like photographs or an exit inspection report for the lawns.
- The landlord was not substantially successful in their claim, so the tenant was not ordered to reimburse the filing fee.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claims for gas bottle refills and lawn maintenance, but allowed the claim for firewood replacement.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the landlord's claims for reimbursement of gas bottle refills, firewood replacement, and lawn maintenance expenses.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the claims for gas bottle refills and lawn maintenance because the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove these claims on the balance of probabilities. However, the claim for firewood replacement was allowed as it was deemed fair and reasonable given the circumstances.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 39(3) and 85 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the landlord's failure to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claims for gas bottle refills and lawn maintenance on the balance of probabilities.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly for and partly against the person who brought the case. The landlord's claims for gas bottle refills and lawn maintenance were dismissed, but the claim for firewood replacement was allowed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that they must provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities, especially for outgoings that are exclusively attributable to their occupation.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included the tenant's bank statements showing payments for gas bottle refills, and the lack of invoices or other corroborating evidence from the landlord.