Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5196674 — Property damage at 162 Bleakhouse Road, Mellons Bay, Auckland 2014
Decided 29 Jul 2025 · Published 29 Jul 2025 · Application 5196674
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s names and identifying details.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately as set out in the table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- [Tenant 1] confirmed that he had authority to represent his sister, [Tenant 2].
- Barry Maxwell confirmed that he had authority to represent all of the trustees.
- The tenancy of this 5 – 6 bedroom home with swimming pool and spa began on 9 September 2022 and ended on 28 June 2024.
- The tenancy ended with rent arrears owing. Those arrears are the subject of a mediated order that the landlord has now taken steps to enforce. Those arrears therefore cannot be incorporated into this order.
- In this application the landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal and damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- This a claim by the landlord and so the landlord bears the onus of proving their claim to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities).
How much is owed for and water rates?
- The parties agreed that $85.08 was owing at the end of the tenancy. The order for outstanding water rates is therefore made by consent.
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, 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 (RTA). Cleaning - landlord
- The landlord said that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy because: a. Interior: There was dust in places on the carpet on the stairs, some of the skirtings were dusty, there were cobwebs in two of the vertical blinds, the shower doors were cloudy in some areas, the kitchen hobs had a small area that needed wiping, the glass on a set of glass shelves had some smears and there were marks on the heat pump. b. Exterior garden: There were palm fronds throughout the garden, there were some weeds in between the cobblestones and a car had reversed onto the grass by the driveway leaving tyre mark and a muddy patch. c. Bean bag: A bean bag had split leaving polystyrene beads strewn throughout the garden and pool.
- The landlord provided photos of the areas referred to above. The landlord produced an invoice for interior cleaning in the amount of $550.00 and an invoice for gardening and green waste removal in the amount of $737.50. There was no invoice for removing the polystyrene beads but the landlord claimed the amount of $67.50 based on 1.5 hours of time at $45.00 per hour). The landlord also claimed for their time spent doing additional cleaning (mainly to toilets) and weeding together with the cost of weed killer. Cleaning - tenants
- The tenants said that the interior had been left reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants said that friends and family came to help and that they spent considerable time cleaning and wiped down all surfaces. They acknowledged that some small areas may have been missed but said that the property was reasonably clean and tidy overall. They also said this is very large property and that the landlord had picked out tiny imperfections and photographed them.
- The tenants said that the exterior had also been left reasonably clean and tidy except for some weeds. They said that they regularly mowed lawns and did weeding by hand. They said that they did not want to use roundup or similar as they were concerned it could leach into the pool, and agreed that some weeds remained at the end of the tenancy. They acknowledged that there were a small number of palm fronds in the garden at the end of the tenancy but said that there were so many palms that there were always palm fronds in the garden and that they spent much of the tenancy removing and disposing of them. Cleaning - discussion
- 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).
- 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 reasonably clean and tidy standard does not require tenants to leave every single aspect of the property in perfect condition. It only needs to be reasonably clean and tidy overall. It is expected that landlord will need to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies and this is particularly so with deep cleaning tasks.
- After reviewing the photos and hearing from the parties I consider that although there were some minor spots where more cleaning was required, the property was reasonably clean and tidy overall inside. The landlord produced only a small number of photos and these were all close up photos of areas that required only a small further wipe down or quick vacuum 1 .
- Likewise, tenants do not need to do any more than maintain the exterior of the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This includes mowing lawns and weeding unless the tenancy agreement provides otherwise. Any provision in the tenancy agreement that purports to impose greater obligations on tenants than those set out in the RTA is unenforceable 2 .
- After reviewing the photos and hearing from the parties I consider that the exterior of the property was very close to being reasonably clean and tidy. The palm fronds were the landlord’s responsibility to remove and dispose of 3 . There was no evidence that the lawn had not been mowed. The tyre mark left on the lawn was minor. The tenants accepted that some further weeding was required. Having reviewed the evidence I consider that amount of $40.00 to be appropriate compensation. Polystyrene beads
- The tenants accepted that the bean bag had left polystyrene beads scattered throughout the garden. The landlord produced photos showing the beads across various locations.
- I consider the landlord’s estimate of 1.5 hours to be reasonable as the beads were throughout the garden and pool. However I consider that an hourly rate of $30 per hour to be more in keeping with the rate generally used in the Tribunal where landlords do work themselves. I therefore order the sum of $45.00 as compensation for cleaning up the polystyrene beads. Rubbish removal
- The landlord said that the tenant left a bbq behind that had to be disposed of. The landlord produced a receipt for disposal in the amount of $79.00 for disposal together with a claim for labour in the amount of $22.50.
- The tenants accepted that they left the bbq behind. 1 While the area in the garage with the rusted paint tin marks may have required more cleaning I was not satisfied on the evidence produced that these marks were caused during the tenancy 2 See section 11 RTA 3 Landlords are responsible for pruning and maintaining trees, shrubs and hedges and removing the garden waste accordingly
- I consider the total amount claimed by the landlord to be reasonable and order compensation of $101.50. Keys
- The landlord said that the tenant only returned one set of keys so they had to organise extra keys for the front door, internal door from garage to house, garage door remote and auto gate. The landlord organised these themselves and claimed the cost of materials together with the time and mileage in the amount of $170.97.
- The tenant accepted that only one set of keys had been returned.
- I consider the amount claimed to be reasonable. If the landlord has not done the work themselves the amount charged the amount claimed would likely have been higher. I have included the hourly rate and mileage claimed by the landlord as I consider it to be reasonable in this instance. Lightbulbs
- The landlord said that various light bulbs were not working/missing at the end of the tenancy. They produced invoices for the purchase of replacement light bulbs in the amount of $72.77.
- The tenants accepted that some lights bulbs were not working/were missing at the end of the tenancy.
- I consider the amount claimed for the replacement bulbs to be reasonable. I order the amount claimed for lightbulbs. I do not order the additional time/mileage claimed by the landlord as I consider lightbulb replacement to be straight-forward.
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.
- The landlord claimed for a large amount of compensation for damage to a variety of items including light fittings, blinds, curtains, walls, a vacuum foot and connection and a number of swimming pool components and accessories.
- While the landlord produced photos in evidence of most, but not all, of the items at the end of the tenancy, no photos were produced of the items at the start of the tenancy (with the exception of the spa pool cover). The tenants accepted that some of the items were caused during the tenancy which I consider in more detail below.
- I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the remaining items were damaged during the tenancy. In any event, some of the damage claimed was likely to be wear and tear (for example the silicone around the sink) or the items were beyond their useful lifespan (for example the blinds). The swimming pool appeared to require maintenance beyond what would normally be required of tenants and so I am not satisfied that the tenants would have been found responsible, even if the damage had been proved.
- The tenant accepted that the following items were damaged during the tenancy: Spa pool cover
- The landlord said that the tenants damaged the spa pool cover during the tenancy. They produced photos showing a tear in the vinyl and slight split down the middle. The landlord said that the spa pool cover was around 3 years old at the start of the tenancy.
- The landlord said that they were unable to repair the spa pool cover and had to purchase a replacement at a cost of $650.00 (invoice provided).
- The tenants accepted that they had damaged the spa pool cover. They said that they thought the spa pool cover was slightly older than 3 years at the start of the tenancy.
- The only issue for determination is the compensation that should be ordered. Landlords should be left in the same position that they would have been if the tenants had not caused damage, but should not be better or worse off. In this instance the landlord now has a new spa pool cover so I must consider the age and condition of the spa pool and its likely useful lifespan.
- The Inland Revenue Department depreciation schedules do not give an estimated useful life for spa pool covers. Spa pools have an estimated useful lifespan of between 10 and 12.5 years. Spa pool covers are exposed to the elements and chlorine, both of which cause them to degrade. I consider that, at best, they are likely to have a useful lifespan of 10 years.
- This was a two year tenancy so even on the landlord’s version of events the spa pool cover was five years old at the end of the tenancy. I have also reviewed correspondence between the parties which detailed previous repairs to the cover, so some damage had already occurred during the previous tenancy.
- In the circumstances I consider that compensation of approximately one-quarter of the amount claimed should be ordered, being the sum of $162.50. Wall
- The landlord said that there was some damage to the wall in one of the tenant’s son’s bedrooms and produced a photo of the damage.
- The tenants accepted that the damage had occurred during the tenancy.
- The landlord claimed the sum of $83.85. The tenant accepted this amount. There is no basis for applying depreciation/betterment to this amount. Bond
- The Tribunal is only able to deal with the claim before it and cannot incorporate previous orders made once steps are taken to enforce those orders.
- The bond will therefore be released to the parties in accordance with the orders made.
- In making an order for release of the bond I am acutely aware that a large portion of the bond will be released to the tenants even though there may still be an outstanding amount to be paid in respect of the previous mediated order.
- At the hearing [Tenant 1] expressed a strong desire to settle all matters with the landlord so that no further enforcement steps are taken, particularly in the case of [Tenant 2] who has had her car repossessed.
- I strongly encourage the parties to discuss matters to see if they are able to resolve all matters between them so that no further enforcement steps are necessary. Filing fee and name suppression
- The landlord has had some success but has not been wholly or substantially successful. I have therefore not reimbursed the filing fee.
- The tenants have sought an order for name suppression and are entitled to an order pursuant to section 95A RTA. Overall the tenants have been the successful party as the landlord has been unable to prove the bulk of their claims. They are therefore entitled to an order for name suppression.
- The landlord did not seek an order for name suppression.