What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120774 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 5120774?

Agreed Rent Owed To 3/09/2024: $3,741.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Opener And Keys: $109.23 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $194.90 awarded to landlord; Replace Cutlery Tray: $24.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120774?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12304392-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120774 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 5120774?

Agreed Rent Owed To 3/09/2024: $3,741.44 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Opener And Keys: $109.23 awarded to landlord; To Walls: $194.90 awarded to landlord; Replace Cutlery Tray: $24.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120774?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12304392-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120774 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5120774 — net $4,268.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Agreed rent owed to 3/09/2024	$3,741.44	Agreed rent owed to 3/09/2024
Carpet cleaning	$199.00	Carpet cleaning
Garage door opener and keys	$109.23	Garage door opener and keys
Replace cutlery tray	$24.05	Replace cutlery tray
Repairs: to walls	$194.90	Repairs: to walls
Net award	$4,268.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,268.62

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5120774 — net $4,268.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Agreed rent owed to 3/09/2024	$3,741.44	Agreed rent owed to 3/09/2024
Carpet cleaning	$199.00	Carpet cleaning
Garage door opener and keys	$109.23	Garage door opener and keys
Replace cutlery tray	$24.05	Replace cutlery tray
Repairs: to walls	$194.90	Repairs: to walls
Net award	$4,268.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,268.62

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $4,268.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Agreed rent owed to 3/09/2024$3741.44 Carpet cleaning$199.00 Garage door opener and keys$109.23 Replace cutlery tray$24.05 Repairs: to walls$194.90 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4268.62
The claims for water charges, carpet damage and kitchen benchtop damage are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 24 February 2025, 26 May 2025 and 30 July 2025.
This tenancy commenced on 30 May 2022. The tenants rented a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom home from the landlord.
In November 2024 the Tribunal ordered a reduction in the fixed term tenancy and ended the tenancy as at 3 September 2024. The tenants were ordered to pay the landlord $4600.00 in compensation for the break lease.
On 26 May 2025 the Tribunal ordered the refund of the bond to the landlord by consent. This completed payment of the amount ordered on 25 November 2024 and resolved the tenant’s application filed on 3 December 2024 seeking payment of the bond to the landlord.
On 30 July 2025 the tenants advised that they have reconciled their rent payments and discovered that they owe the landlord $3741.44. This amount is ordered by consent.
This now leaves the Tribunal to consider the landlord’s cross application for the following vacated claims as listed below: (a)2x keys $21.80 (b)Water charges $73.24 (c)Cutlery tray $24.05 (d)Paint $44.90 (e)Wall fixing and painting $150 (f)Stain removal and cleaning $333.50 (g)Carpet fixing $230 (h)2x Garage door openers $174.86 (i)Ceiling and down lights cleaning $250 (j)Kitchen bench top repair $550 (k)Application fee $27
At the hearing on 24 February 2025 the tenant agreed to pay the following: (a)Cutlery tray $24.05. (b)Wall fixing and painting totalling $194.90. (c)One garage door opener and keys totalling $109.23.
The remaining claims are in dispute.
At the hearing on 26 May 2025 the landlord sought to increase the amount sought to replace one garage door opener. He claimed that the remotes purchased from Bunnings after the tenancy ended did not work and he has only recently discovered this. The landlord produced an invoice from Garador dated March 2025 in the sum of $145.00 for the correct remote. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord has proved the claim for the increased amount for the following reasons: (a)The tenancy ended on 3 September 2024. The landlord purchased replacement remotes after the tenancy ended. (b)The invoice provided for the second remote purchased is dated March 2025 which is six months after the end of the tenancy and more than three months after the landlord had possession and the opportunity to check he had purchased the correct remotes. (c)Given the length of time since the tenancy ended I am not satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the increased price to purchase a second set of remotes.

How much is owed for water?

The tenancy ended on 3 September 2024. The landlord provided a water statement and water rates invoices and claimed the sum of $73.24 is outstanding. The landlord explained that some water invoices were missing but he calculated the amount due for these months by looking at the invoices immediately before and after the missing invoices.
As this statement was provided at the hearing the tenants sought time to reconcile their record of payments with the statement.
The Tribunal allowed time after the hearing for further evidence to be filed only in respect of water.
On 31 July 2025 the tenants filed a reconciliation and claimed that nothing further was owed for water.
On 13 August 2025 the landlord filed a copy of their July and August 2024 bank statements and claimed that a payment of $23.62 referred to in the tenant’s reconciliation had not been received from the tenants.
I have considered the evidence and find that the landlord has not proved the amount claimed for outstanding water charges to the required standard for the following reasons: (a)There are water invoices missing from the statements provided by the landlord. Although the landlord has calculated the amounts claimed for these months I do not have proof of the actual water usage. (b)The landlord bank statement records a payment of $23.62 from the tenants on 12 August 2024 which is the same date the tenants record that it was paid.
Therefore, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there are outstanding water charges owed and this claim is dismissed.

Did the tenants 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 tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord provided photographs of a ceiling, the security alarm, the heatpump and one downlight showing flyspots and some photographs showing carpet stains. The photographs of the heatpump and the downlight are the only dated photographs and record they were taken on 24 December 2024.
The landlord seeks compensation in the sum of $250 for cleaning fly spots from the ceilings, the heatpump and downlights. The landlord seeks compensation of $199.00 for a carpet clean and claims this was needed due to stains on the carpet and the smell of the tenant dogs.
The landlord advised that the cleaning was done by the landlord and the amount sought is calculated as 10 hours work at $25.00 per hour. An invoice was provided for the carpet clean.
The tenants claim that they cleaned the premises and the carpet at the end of the tenancy and left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenants provided photographs taken at the end of the tenancy
It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I have carefully considered the evidence and I find that the majority of the inside of these large premises was left reasonably clean and tidy. The dated photographs of the flyspots were taken a month after the landlord took back possession of the property. However, I am satisfied that the carpet cleaning was required due to the tenants having dogs at the premises and this amount is ordered.
The tenants claimed that prior to this tenancy commencing there was an agreed increase in rent by $20.00 per week to cover any costs associated with the dogs. The landlord disputed this and claimed that the property manager initially miscommunicated the rent amount to the tenants. Both parties provided copies of communication prior to the tenancy commencing and there is no written record of why the rent amount changed.
The amount of $199.00 is ordered for the carpet clean.

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 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.
The landlord claims that damage was caused during the tenancy. I will consider each claim in turn.
Carpet Replacement (a)The landlord claims that the tenants damaged the carpet during the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs of a strip of carpet beside a ranchslider that showed the carpet worn to the threads in patches. The landlord claimed that the tenants had used bleach on the carpet and this had caused damage. (b)The landlord sought compensation of $230 for installation of a replacement piece of carpet. (c)The tenants denied using bleach on the carpet and claimed that the damage was caused by wear and tear due to exposure to the sun through the ranch slider. The tenants provided photographs of the area showing that the carpet had previously been cut out and replaced in the same area. They claimed this supported their claim that the area was prone to wear and tear. (d)The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence to prove the claim. The landlord did not provide evidence from a carpet expert regarding the cause of the damage. It is not possible to ascertain from the photographs whether the damage was caused by bleach or by the sun. Therefore, I find that the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
Carpet Stain Removal (a)The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the carpet by staining it and sought compensation for stain removal. (b)The tenants disputed this and claimed that the carpet was stained prior to the tenancy commencing. (c)The tenants provided dated photographs of the carpet taken by them at the beginning of the tenancy which showed existing stains. (d)The landlord did not provide entry inspection photographs and stated he was unable to provide these as they were taken by [redacted] and he does not have a copy. The landlord advised that the carpet was approximately 5 years old prior to this tenancy commencing. (e)I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was stain damage to the carpet during the tenancy that was beyond fair and tear due to the age and condition of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy.
Kitchen Bench (a)The landlord claims that the tenants carelessly damaged the kitchen benchtop as there was a crack in the benchtop at the end of the tenancy. (b)The landlord provided an exit photograph showing a crack in a narrow part of the bench between the edge and the cooktop. (c)The landlord seeks compensation by way of reimbursement of the insurance excess of $550.00. He advised that he has not yet had the benchtop repaired but instead has filled the gap with silicone and the premises have been rented to new tenants. (d)The tenants denied responsibility and claimed that the crack was present at the beginning of the tenancy. (e)Both parties provided photographs they stated were taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord says his photograph shows the crack was not present. The tenants say their photograph shows the crack was present. Both photographs are taken from a distance of the kitchen. The portion of benchtop in dispute is not clear in either photograph. (f)Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim for $550.00 on the balance of probabilities as the entry photographs are not clear and even if the crack appeared during the tenancy there is insufficient evidence that it is beyond fair wear and tear during normal use of the kitchen. In any event the landlord has not actually incurred any repair cost as the repair has not been done. Filing fee/Suppression
As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no orders regarding reimbursement of either filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Both parties have had some success with their applications. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of all party identifying details in the publication of this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120774 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120774 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water?

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

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

How much is owed for water?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions