What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5189511 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 5189511?

Cleaning: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,610.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $478.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,978.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,120.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5189511?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5189511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11858884-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5189511 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 5189511?

Cleaning: $380.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,610.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $478.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,978.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,120.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5189511?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5189511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11858884-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5189511 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5189511 — net $4,963.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,120.71	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$1,610.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$149.50	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$380.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement and garage remotes	$478.07	Lock/key replacement and garage remotes
Repairs	$1,978.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,963.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,963.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Shaahidah Nisha and Zuned Rahiman must pay [The landlord/s] $4,963.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 15 May 2025
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $3,120.71.

Did the tenant 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, 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photos of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. The photos show that the premises had not been left in a reasonably clean and tidy standard by the tenants. The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning for $2,288.50.
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 invoice provided for cleaning refers to “deep cleaning”. The landlord indicated that the level of cleaning carried out was to bring the premises back to a “rentable standard”. That is not the standard required of a tenant. It is generally accepted that further cleaning will be required between tenancies. Having reviewed the photos and the invoice, I consider that a reasonable charge to bring the premises back to a reasonably clean and tidy standard would be $1,610.00. The landlord has also claimed for lawns and gardens work. The landlord provided photos of the exterior of the premises showing that the exterior gardens were in a poor state. The claim for $149.50 is reasonable.
The tenant did not return the keys or the two garage remotes. An invoice was provided by the landlord in support.
Photos of the carpet were provided showing stains and marks which have been which required a commercial carpet cleaner at a charge of $380.00. The charge is reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $1,250.00 on each and every claim.
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 said that the existing cook top had been damaged by the tenant. The landlord provided a copy of the invoice from the contractor engaged to provide a quote for a new cook top. The quote states “removal and disposal of existing cook top due to numerous faults, appliance being at end of life.” In dismissing the landlord’s claimed for compensation, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The quote indicates that the appliance was at the end of its life and therefore of no value.
The landlord provided photos from the end of the tenancy showing multiple holes to doors and walls. The quote provided refers to the need to stop holes in multiple holes throughout the property and complete a full repaint of the walls and garage walls. The total estimate is $2,750.00. The landlord said that the photos showed that the premises had been in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The damage is more than fear wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In setting the compensation amount, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the walls and doors at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The tenant is ordered to pay compensation of $1,978.00. The landlord’s insurance excess does not apply to this claim as the excess relates to each and every claim.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details as ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5189511 — net $4,963.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,120.71	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$1,610.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$149.50	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$380.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement and garage remotes	$478.07	Lock/key replacement and garage remotes
Repairs	$1,978.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,963.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,963.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Shaahidah Nisha and Zuned Rahiman must pay [The landlord/s] $4,963.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 15 May 2025
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $3,120.71.

Did the tenant 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, 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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photos of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. The photos show that the premises had not been left in a reasonably clean and tidy standard by the tenants. The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning for $2,288.50.
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 invoice provided for cleaning refers to “deep cleaning”. The landlord indicated that the level of cleaning carried out was to bring the premises back to a “rentable standard”. That is not the standard required of a tenant. It is generally accepted that further cleaning will be required between tenancies. Having reviewed the photos and the invoice, I consider that a reasonable charge to bring the premises back to a reasonably clean and tidy standard would be $1,610.00. The landlord has also claimed for lawns and gardens work. The landlord provided photos of the exterior of the premises showing that the exterior gardens were in a poor state. The claim for $149.50 is reasonable.
The tenant did not return the keys or the two garage remotes. An invoice was provided by the landlord in support.
Photos of the carpet were provided showing stains and marks which have been which required a commercial carpet cleaner at a charge of $380.00. The charge is reasonable.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. The landlord is insured. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $1,250.00 on each and every claim.
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 said that the existing cook top had been damaged by the tenant. The landlord provided a copy of the invoice from the contractor engaged to provide a quote for a new cook top. The quote states “removal and disposal of existing cook top due to numerous faults, appliance being at end of life.” In dismissing the landlord’s claimed for compensation, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The quote indicates that the appliance was at the end of its life and therefore of no value.
The landlord provided photos from the end of the tenancy showing multiple holes to doors and walls. The quote provided refers to the need to stop holes in multiple holes throughout the property and complete a full repaint of the walls and garage walls. The total estimate is $2,750.00. The landlord said that the photos showed that the premises had been in good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The damage is more than fear wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In setting the compensation amount, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the walls and doors at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The tenant is ordered to pay compensation of $1,978.00. The landlord’s insurance excess does not apply to this claim as the excess relates to each and every claim.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details as ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5189511 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5189511 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant 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 rent?

Did the tenant 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