What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5116108 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5116108?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5116108?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5116108?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11646585-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5116108 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5116108?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5116108?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5116108?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11646585-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5116108 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5116108 — net $207.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Net award	$207.00
Bond	$407.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$207.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Propertyscouts Dunedin 2017 Limited As Agent For K Mclellan & S Moodley $207.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $407.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Propertyscouts Dunedin 2017 Limited As Agent For K Mclellan & S Moodley: $207.00 [The tenant/s]: $200.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 28 March 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 6 January 2023 and ended on 3 December 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. 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.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not 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.” (the emphasis is mine). Cleaning
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) 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.
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 landlord provided extensive photos of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that cleaning was required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The landlord provided an invoice for $207.00. The landlord said that further cleaning was carried out before new tenants entered the premises.
The tenant said that cleaning had been done in the period leading up to the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that when the tenancy started lots of surfaces needed to be wiped down but that she had not complained about that at the time.
Having reviewed the end of tenancy photos, I am satisfied that further cleaning was required to be carried out by the landlord to bring the premises to the required reasonably clean and tidy standard. The invoice for $207.00 is reasonable.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that a carpet was stained. The landlord provided photos of the area where the stain was subsequently discovered, which were taken prior to the commencement of the tenancy. Those photos do not show a stained area. The landlord also provided photos of the stained area taken at the end of the tenancy. Those photos show a stained area. The landlord provided an initial estimate for the repairs of $200.00. The actual cost of repair was $190.00.
The tenant’s evidence was that the bottom of the door adjoining the stained area had not been fully finished. The bottom of the door was not painted and the raw wood surface on the bottom of the door had scraped on the carpet as the door was opened and closed, causing the stain. The tenant said that they first noticed the stain in June 2023. The stain had never been raised at any previous inspections by the landlord during the course of the tenancy.
The first questions for consideration are whether the landlord has proven that the stain occurred during the tenancy and if so whether the stain was as a result of fair wear and tear?
The photos from the pre tenancy inspection show no indication of a stain. The tenant suggested that perhaps previous tenants had not used the door. I am not persuaded by that suggestion. I find that the damage has occurred during the course of the tenancy.
Is it as a result of fair wear and tear? A tenant is not liable for fair wear and tear, meaning damage during the ordinary use. Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition. If the Tribunal accepts the tenant’s explanation of the stain being caused by the repetitive use of a door, which had not been properly finished, then a defence of fear wear and tear would exist.
I consider that the photographs of the stain provided by the landlord support the tenant’s proposition. The line of the point of the door where the door opens and shuts coincides precisely with the stained area. It is possible that over a period of time that the door has settled through normal house movement and that this explains why the stain only occurred during this tenancy. The tenant having raised an accepted defence of fair wear and tear, the claim is dismissed.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants have applied for name suppression. The tenants have achieved a substantial degree of success in this matter and suppression of the tenant names and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5116108 — net $207.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$207.00	Cleaning
Net award	$207.00
Bond	$407.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$207.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Propertyscouts Dunedin 2017 Limited As Agent For K Mclellan & S Moodley $207.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $407.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Propertyscouts Dunedin 2017 Limited As Agent For K Mclellan & S Moodley: $207.00 [The tenant/s]: $200.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 28 March 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 6 January 2023 and ended on 3 December 2024.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. 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.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not 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.” (the emphasis is mine). Cleaning
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) 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.
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 landlord provided extensive photos of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said that cleaning was required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The landlord provided an invoice for $207.00. The landlord said that further cleaning was carried out before new tenants entered the premises.
The tenant said that cleaning had been done in the period leading up to the end of the tenancy. The tenant said that when the tenancy started lots of surfaces needed to be wiped down but that she had not complained about that at the time.
Having reviewed the end of tenancy photos, I am satisfied that further cleaning was required to be carried out by the landlord to bring the premises to the required reasonably clean and tidy standard. The invoice for $207.00 is reasonable.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that a carpet was stained. The landlord provided photos of the area where the stain was subsequently discovered, which were taken prior to the commencement of the tenancy. Those photos do not show a stained area. The landlord also provided photos of the stained area taken at the end of the tenancy. Those photos show a stained area. The landlord provided an initial estimate for the repairs of $200.00. The actual cost of repair was $190.00.
The tenant’s evidence was that the bottom of the door adjoining the stained area had not been fully finished. The bottom of the door was not painted and the raw wood surface on the bottom of the door had scraped on the carpet as the door was opened and closed, causing the stain. The tenant said that they first noticed the stain in June 2023. The stain had never been raised at any previous inspections by the landlord during the course of the tenancy.
The first questions for consideration are whether the landlord has proven that the stain occurred during the tenancy and if so whether the stain was as a result of fair wear and tear?
The photos from the pre tenancy inspection show no indication of a stain. The tenant suggested that perhaps previous tenants had not used the door. I am not persuaded by that suggestion. I find that the damage has occurred during the course of the tenancy.
Is it as a result of fair wear and tear? A tenant is not liable for fair wear and tear, meaning damage during the ordinary use. Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition. If the Tribunal accepts the tenant’s explanation of the stain being caused by the repetitive use of a door, which had not been properly finished, then a defence of fear wear and tear would exist.
I consider that the photographs of the stain provided by the landlord support the tenant’s proposition. The line of the point of the door where the door opens and shuts coincides precisely with the stained area. It is possible that over a period of time that the door has settled through normal house movement and that this explains why the stain only occurred during this tenancy. The tenant having raised an accepted defence of fair wear and tear, the claim is dismissed.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants have applied for name suppression. The tenants have achieved a substantial degree of success in this matter and suppression of the tenant names and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5116108 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5116108 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions