Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5056571 — Cleanliness at 5 Jenkins Place, Arrowtown, Arrowtown 9302
Decided 12 Mar 2025 · Published 12 Mar 2025 · Application 5056571
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Arrowtown
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Morgan
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $427.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $427.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oven/stove cleaning | $100.00 | Oven/stove cleaning | |
| Lawns and Garden work | $300.00 | Lawns and Garden work | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $27.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $427.00 | ||
| Bond | $3,300.00 |
Order
- Alison Argus and Walter Argus to pay Arcadia Property Limited As Agent For Mckenzie Family Trust $427.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,300.00 (5441697-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Arcadia Property Limited As Agent For Mckenzie Family Trust: $427.00 Alison Argus and Walter Argus: $2,873.00
- The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the grounds or the oven reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photographs and receipts to establish these claims.
- 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.
- The landlord claimed for a replacement LED light ($135.13), “general maintenance” ($163.88) and painting ($1,495). The landlord did not establish that the first two items were “damage”. The landlord’s representative did not refer me to specific evidence of the alleged damage. I find that these were maintenance items which a landlord would usually be expected to attend to. The claims are dismissed.
- The landlord claimed for painting of a bedroom because a patch of wallpaper was torn off at the base of one wall. The in-going inspection describes the wallpaper as “peeling in places, nothing major”. The in-going photographs also confirm that the wallpaper was old and worn at the start of the tenancy.
- The tenant disputes liability for repainting the bedroom and says that the wallpaper would not have torn if it had not already been peeling. I accept that submission. I find that the tearing was “wear and tear” having regard to the age and condition of the wallpaper. I also find that the tearing was not carelessly or intentionally caused by the tenants. Even if the tear did constitute damage, any award to the landlord would be nominal having regard to the age and condition of the wallpaper, betterment, and depreciation.
- As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. However, the landlord was not substantially successful, so I did not grant its request for suppression. The tenant did not wish for its name to be suppressed.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5056571?
The tribunal order states: Alison Argus and Walter Argus to pay Arcadia Property Limited As Agent For
How much money was awarded in case 5056571?
Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5056571?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5056571?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11562534-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.