What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183652 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 5183652?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183652?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12714054-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183652 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 5183652?

Cleaning: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183652?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12714054-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

72B Connaught Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5183652 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5183652. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$600.00		Cleaning

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5183652. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$600.00		Cleaning

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately, apportioned on the basis of the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. [Tenant 1] represented her husband with his authority.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. She later added a further claim based on the tenant running her business from the property.
This matter involves the rental of a two-bedroom home that began on 27 February 2021 and ended on 31 August 2023.
There have been delays in this matter as the landlord’s claim was originally filed in the Disputes Tribunal. The Tenancy Tribunal made orders on 9 September 2025 declaring that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this claim. Onus and evidence
As with all claims filed in the Tribunal it is for the party bringing the claim to prove their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
A large amount of evidence was filed by both parties. For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all of the evidence filed but the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence when preparing this decision.

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

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). The landlord’s claim
The landlord said that the tenants did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy.
In relation to the inside the landlord said that there was fly-dirt on lampshades, mould on the ceiling, rusty spots in the shower, the carpet wasn’t properly vacuumed, there was a drawing wall and a hole in the single bedroom, dust on the skirtings, dirty patches on windowsills and the oven was unclean. She said that the carpet was stained from the tenant’s dog.
In relation to the outside she said that the lawns were not mown and that various plants had become overgrown.
The landlord provided an invoice in the amount of $1,444.40 for cleaning, carpet cleaning and lawns, issued by a related company for cleaning both inside and outside the property
The landlord provided a limited number of close up photos of areas inside but and no photos of the outside area very few photos from the start of the tenancy. The tenant’s response
The tenant said that the property was built in approximately 1960 and was in original condition. She produced photos from the start of the tenancy which shows the property to be in a fairly tired, worn condition.
The tenant said that she paid for the carpet to be cleaned before she left the tenancy and produced an invoice for carpet cleaning in the amount of $140.00. She accepted that some additional cleaning was required, but said that the landlord’s invoice was unreasonable. Discussion
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).
Contractual provisions that require a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy are generally unenforceable (s 11 RTA). Commercial carpet cleaning will only be only required where this is necessary to return the carpet to a reasonably condition.
Having reviewed all of the evidence I am not satisfied that ls landlord has proved that any work was required outside. There was simply not enough evidence provided on this issue.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the property was worn at the outset.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that some additional cleaning was required. The tenant accepted this also.
Having considered all of the evidence and having heard from the parties, I agree with the tenant that the amount of $600 is a reasonable amount to get the property up to the “reasonably clean and tidy” standard. I order compensation of this amount.

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.
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. Carpet
The landlord said that the carpet in two of the rooms was stained and smelly from the tenant’s dog. The landlord produced photos of the carpet which shows stains. The landlord did not have any photos from the start of the tenancy showing the carpet in any detail.
The landlord said that the carpet in these two rooms required replacement and sought compensation for two insurance excess amounts in the amount of $750.00. However when questioned the landlord said that she had not yet replaced the carpet.
The tenant said that the carpet was old and stained when she moved in. She produced photos of the carpet from the start of the tenancy showing stains, and again referred to her invoice for carpet cleaning.
I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the tenant has damaged the carpet. The photos produced do not show a clear comparison.
I note in addition that the carpet appears to be quite old. Even if I had found that the tenant had damaged the carpet I would have had to consider depreciation, as any award of compensation must take into account the age and condition of the item and it’s estimated useful life.
The Inland Revenue Department IR265 Depreciations Schedule “Residential Chattels” estimates that carpet has a useful life of 8 years. The landlord estimated the carpet was 8 – 10 years old. I accept that carpet can often last longer before being replaced, but having seen the tenant’s photos from the start of the tenancy I consider that this carpet is at the end of its useful life.
The claim for carpet replacement is not proven and is dismissed. Window
The landlord said that a window was broken during the tenancy. She produced a photo of the window which shows a small crack in the corner. The landlord did not have an invoice for the repair but produced an invoice for a window at a different property in the amount of $230.00 to demonstrate the approximate cost.
The tenant said that the crack was quite small and that she noticed it in March 2021, when she had been living in the property for around one month. She took a photo and sent it to the landlord to let her know. She said that the landlord never fixed the window.
The landlord said that she had fixed the window but could not recall whether it was during or after the tenancy. She said that she had mislaid the invoice.
I have carefully reviewed all of the photos filed and cannot find a photos showing the window intact at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said that she was certain that she had filed a photo of the window intact, but could not refer me to any such photo during the hearing.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Commercial use
The landlord said that the tenancy agreement provided that the property was to be used for residential purposes but that the tenant was using the property for commercial purposes.
The landlord said that the tenant operates a travel agency business and that she discovered that the tenant had used the tenancy address as the registered office at the Companies Office.
The tenant said that she does have a company but she works entirely online. She said that no clients ever come to the property. She denied using the property for commercial purposes.
I do not consider that this claim is proven. I consider that it is reasonable for tenants to list a property as the registered office if they own a company. This enables them to receive correspondence from the Companies Office at their home address. It does not necessarily mean that they are using the property for commercial purposes.
The photos produced show a family home. The tenants lived there with their child. There was no evidence of customers coming and going. I am not satisfied that the tenant was using the property for commercial purposes.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord is not entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has been the successful party and is entitled to an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183652 — Cleanliness at 72B Connaught Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183652 — Cleanliness at 72B Connaught Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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