What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5187244 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5187244?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187244?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187244?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12984364-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5187244 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5187244?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5187244?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5187244?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12984364-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Apartment 317, 127 Newton Road, Eden Terrace, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5187244 — Mould & damp

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlords claim for cleaning costs and the tenant’s claim relating to listing chattels are dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
[A tenant’s name] attended the hearing for the tenants.
Abbas Sharoodi and Milan Sharoodi attended for Gamma Properties.
This is a rehearing of: 1 a. The landlord’s claim that the tenants failed to leave the premises reasonably clean. 2 b. The tenants’ claim that the landlord failed to include a list of chattels in the tenancy agreement. 3 1 On 17 November 2025, Adjudicator K Henry ordered the rehearing in respect to the Tribunal’s order dated 19 September 2025. 2 See Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii).
The hearing is de novo. That is, it is a completely new hearing at which the matters are heard afresh.
I deal with the landlord’s claim first and then the tenants’.

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean?

The landlord alleges the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy and seeks the cost of cleaning the premises. Legal principles
At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 4
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. A landlord may have to complete additional cleaning work between tenancies to ensure the premises is clean to the potentially higher standard that a new tenant may require.
It is the overall cleanliness of the premises that matters. A few isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is insufficient proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 5
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Discussion
The landlord did not produce any entry photographs. It relied on a property inspection report dated 3 January 2024 filled out on the day the tenancy began. 3 RTA s 13A(1)(o). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 5 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12.
The inspection report is in the commonly used checklist format and allows comments for “DAMAGE/DEFECTS”. Abbas Sharoodi, who acted as the property manager for the commencement of the tenancy filled the form out with the tenants. Next to the topic “HALLWAY”, he wrote, “All Cleaned perfectly”; next to “KITCHEN”, “NICE & TIDY Apartment”; and under “MAINTENANCE, NOTES, FINAL ACCOUNT”, “All clean & TIDY”.
Abbas Sharoodi used the same property inspection report format for an exit inspection dated 20 December 2024. This time, Mr Sharoodi recorded for the Lounge Lights “DIRTY spots”; for the Balcony Floor/Wall/Rail her recorded “DIRTY WINDOWS”; and for the Oven he recorded “DIRTY”.
Mr Sharoodi also took some exit photographs on about 18 December 2024 which show a film of grime on the floor underneath the fridge (the fridge having been rolled away), some cooking residue on the stove top, a used oven tray with baked-in residues, and a dryer filter containing a modest amount of lint. The landlord also relied on photographs showing grime on pendant ceiling lampshades and mould in the freezer compartment.
The tenants submitted a four-minute video of the premises labelled as being taken on 17 December 2024. The content of the video presents the premises as clean to a good standard generally. However, the footage does not include clear images of the lampshades, and the images of the stovetop are brief. The video does confirm that the freezer compartment was not mouldy at the time and that the balcony windows appear clean.
The property inspection report is helpful to a degree. The fact that both parties ticked most of the boxes confirms the premises was likely acceptably clean. However, entry photographs are typically more helpful evidence in contested cleaning cases. When there are entry and exit photographs, the Tribunal can more independently and objectively compare the cleanliness of the premises at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
There is insufficient evidence that the oven or oven trays were not clean. Nor does the dryer filter appear to be less than reasonably clean. Moreover, there were no entry photographs that the Tribunal could refer to for comparison.
I turn to consider the cleanliness of the pendant lampshades and the floor under the fridge. The landlord’s photographs show these appear uncleaned. However, there are no entry photographs against which I can assess whether those things were less clean at the end of the tenancy than at the end. Nor can I independently assess the overall cleanliness of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy given the absence of comprehensive images of the entire premises.
The lamp shades are at a height that would not be easy to see the grime and to access them to clean them. The refrigerator is evidently on rollers so it can be moved out of its compartment for cleaning. However, tenants aren’t usually expected to clean behind or under heavy appliances. In this case the tenants say they were daunted by the prospect of pulling the fridge out. Pulling the fridge out may have been feasible in this case, but it is understandable that the tenants did not do so given that is not the usual expectation. I consider that the lack of cleanliness of the lampshades and the floor is minor and would have taken little time or effort to wipe down/mop.
The landlord relies on a photograph of the stovetop which shows some residue in the nature of a pot of rice boiling over. I have found it difficult to reconcile the landlord’s photograph with the tenant’s video. I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord’s photograph accurately represents the cleanliness of the stove as the tenants left it. In any event, again the uncleanliness shown in the landlord’s photograph is minor.
Even accepting for a moment the photograph were fairly representative of how the stove was left and adding that purported uncleanliness with the uncleanliness with the other isolated minor cleaning blemishes, I would not have been satisfied that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
Again, I cannot measure the cleanliness of the premises at the beginning and end of the tenancy independently by reference to objective evidence such as photographs. Conclusion
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants failed to leave the premises reasonably clean.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord fail to include a list of chattels in the tenancy agreement?

The tenants allege the tenancy agreement did not contain a list of landlord chattels. They seek an order for exemplary damages. Legal principles
Landlords must ensure that the tenancy agreement includes certain basic information, including under s 13A(o) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986: (o) a list of any chattels provided by the landlord
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. 6 Discussion
The copy of the tenancy agreement that the landlord provided to the tenants does not contain a chattels list. However, the property inspection report discussed above does contain a list of chattels. The landlord submits that the inspection report forms part of the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s usual practice is to fill out the property inspection report with the tenant upon entry. The property manager then invites the tenant to take a photograph of the document on their smart phone.
Abbas Sharoodi says the tenants did take a photograph of the inspection report containing the list of chattels, but tenants reject that. It is the landlord’s duty to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement including a list of chattels. Providing a copy of the chattels list by inviting the tenant to photograph the property inspection list is less than ideal because if the issue is contested as it is in this case, there may be no objective evidence the landlord has provided the document.
I accept Milan Sharoodi’s submission that the property inspection report formed part of the tenancy agreement. That being so, it follows the tenancy agreement did include a list of chattels.
The tenants say they were not given a copy of the property inspection report containing the list. That may be so. However, that does not mean the agreement did not include a chattels list, only that the tenants did not have a full copy of tenancy agreement, which is not the issue for decision before me.
The chattels list includes the former tenant’s microwave. If the former tenancy did not transfer ownership of the microwave to the landlord, it should not have been listed as a 6 RTA See s 13(4) and Schedule 1A. landlord chattel. However, that was not in issue before me. The issue was whether a chattels list existed, not its accuracy. Conclusion
I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to include a chattels list as part of the tenancy agreement.
This claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The Tribunal’s original orders included an order that the tenants’ names not be published. I replicate that order to preserve the status quo.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187244 — Mould & damp at Apartment 317, 127 Newton Road, Eden Terrace,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5187244 — Mould & damp at Apartment 317, 127 Newton Road, Eden Terrace,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord fail to include a list of chattels in the tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord fail to include a list of chattels in the tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions