What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5172992 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 5172992?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5172992?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5172992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11798932-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5172992 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 5172992?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5172992?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5172992?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11798932-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6A, 3 Church Street, Wellington Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5172992 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
3-9 Church St Investments Limited T/A Aspire Apartments must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the application filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms McLean represented the landlord.
This tenancy ended in January 2025. The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenants want the bond refunded to them.

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

There is a claim for $25 for cleaning in the laundry alcove. Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (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.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have been provided with two photos showing under the tub and showing two bits of plastic and some dust or soap powder between the washing machine and the tub. The tenants said they cleaned. I am not persuaded I should allow this clam. I cannot see the need for any cleaning under the tub. The small amount of debris in the second photo is most likely from under the washing machine. Tenants are not required to move appliances and clean behind or under them. Further it seems most likely to me it would take one minute to clean up the debris. I do not find the tenants should pay for additional cleaning.
I have advised the landlord that the cleaning check list given to the tenants at the end of the tenancy requires them to clean to a higher standard than section 40 of the RTA provides. The landlord has been advised not to use this check list in the future.
Tenants must also leave any chattels provided for their benefit. The landlord said a plastic bin was missing and claimed $11.50 for a replacement. There is a photo showing only one bin at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they left the two bins in the apartment at the end of the tenancy. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I find the landlord’s evidence is not better than the tenants’ evidence because the ingoing photo only shows one bin as well. The landlord has not proved the claim and it is dismissed.

Are the tenants 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.
There is a claim to replace two broken fridge shelves. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with many photos and diagrams of the fridge. The tenants said the shelves were intact at the end of the tenancy and also provided a photo. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage and this claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for $34 to replace a broken shower trap. The tenants agreed this broke during the tenancy. This was not reported by the tenants and they attempted to superglue the trap. They said they should not have to pay because the shower trap broke during normal use. I am not persuaded from the photos and the submissions that there was careless or intentional damage. This claim is dismissed.
I have advised the tenants they must report all damage – including damage that seems minor – during the tenancy. This gives the landlord the opportunity to assess and make repairs.
There is a claim for plastering over missing paint in bedroom three and painting a wall. I have been provided with photos showing three small chips in the paint that were not there at the start of the tenancy. The tenants accepted that someone put a poster of a wall and there was damage at the end of the tenancy. The chips are so small that it seems most likely to me the damage was accidental rather than careless or intentional. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim to plaster, repair and paint damage to two walls in bedroom five. The tenants said there was no damage in this room at the end of the tenancy. Again, the photos provided by the landlord show two very small chips in the paint – about the size of a finger tip. It seems most likely to me the damage was accidental rather than careless or intentional. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for repairing the damage from removing a very small clear plastic hook which is at the top of a wall in bedroom two. The photo provided by the landlord does not show any damage. There is also a small amount of paint that has been damaged above a blind. It seems most likely to me this was accidental because there was no other intentional or careless damage during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord did not make an application for suppression.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
3-9 Church St Investments Limited T/A Aspire Apartments must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the application filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms McLean represented the landlord.
This tenancy ended in January 2025. The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenants want the bond refunded to them.

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

There is a claim for $25 for cleaning in the laundry alcove. Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (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.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have been provided with two photos showing under the tub and showing two bits of plastic and some dust or soap powder between the washing machine and the tub. The tenants said they cleaned. I am not persuaded I should allow this clam. I cannot see the need for any cleaning under the tub. The small amount of debris in the second photo is most likely from under the washing machine. Tenants are not required to move appliances and clean behind or under them. Further it seems most likely to me it would take one minute to clean up the debris. I do not find the tenants should pay for additional cleaning.
I have advised the landlord that the cleaning check list given to the tenants at the end of the tenancy requires them to clean to a higher standard than section 40 of the RTA provides. The landlord has been advised not to use this check list in the future.
Tenants must also leave any chattels provided for their benefit. The landlord said a plastic bin was missing and claimed $11.50 for a replacement. There is a photo showing only one bin at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they left the two bins in the apartment at the end of the tenancy. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I find the landlord’s evidence is not better than the tenants’ evidence because the ingoing photo only shows one bin as well. The landlord has not proved the claim and it is dismissed.

Are the tenants 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.
There is a claim to replace two broken fridge shelves. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with many photos and diagrams of the fridge. The tenants said the shelves were intact at the end of the tenancy and also provided a photo. I find the landlord has not proved there was damage and this claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for $34 to replace a broken shower trap. The tenants agreed this broke during the tenancy. This was not reported by the tenants and they attempted to superglue the trap. They said they should not have to pay because the shower trap broke during normal use. I am not persuaded from the photos and the submissions that there was careless or intentional damage. This claim is dismissed.
I have advised the tenants they must report all damage – including damage that seems minor – during the tenancy. This gives the landlord the opportunity to assess and make repairs.
There is a claim for plastering over missing paint in bedroom three and painting a wall. I have been provided with photos showing three small chips in the paint that were not there at the start of the tenancy. The tenants accepted that someone put a poster of a wall and there was damage at the end of the tenancy. The chips are so small that it seems most likely to me the damage was accidental rather than careless or intentional. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim to plaster, repair and paint damage to two walls in bedroom five. The tenants said there was no damage in this room at the end of the tenancy. Again, the photos provided by the landlord show two very small chips in the paint – about the size of a finger tip. It seems most likely to me the damage was accidental rather than careless or intentional. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for repairing the damage from removing a very small clear plastic hook which is at the top of a wall in bedroom two. The photo provided by the landlord does not show any damage. There is also a small amount of paint that has been damaged above a blind. It seems most likely to me this was accidental because there was no other intentional or careless damage during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord did not make an application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5172992 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 6A, 3 Church Street, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5172992 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 6A, 3 Church Street, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions