What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5205571 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 5205571?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Drapes: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $344.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $608.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205571?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12648189-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5205571 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 5205571?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Drapes: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $344.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $608.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205571?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12648189-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5205571 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5205571 — net $3,002.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (agreed by consent	$608.23	Water rates (agreed by consent
Cleaning	$1,000.00	Cleaning
Drapes	$850.00	Drapes
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replacement stove	$344.25	Replacement stove
Net award	$3,002.48
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,002.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Good Neighbours Real Estate Ltd As Agent For Chas Davy $3,002.48 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Good Neighbours Real Estate Ltd As Agent For Chas Davy: $3,002.48 [The tenant/s]: $117.52

Reasons

The hearing was held on 19 August 2025. Mr Rankin (agent) and Mr Davy attended for the owner. [The tenant/s] attended for the tenants.
This matter relates to a residential tenancy which commenced on 1 June 2020 and ended on 17 November 2024. The weekly rent was $780.00, with a bond of $3,120.00. The landlord has filed an application seeking compensation for a range of costs incurred at the end of the tenancy, including water rates, professional cleaning, repairs, drape remediation, carpet cleaning, and stove replacement. The claims
The landlord seeks the following: • $1,871.63 for cleaning • $3,530.73 for repair of rotten flooring and bathroom area • $1,696.40 for remediation of mould-affected drapes • $339.25 for carpet cleaning and water damage inspection • $688.49 for replacement of a damaged stove • $608.23 for water charges (this claim was agreed to by consent and is not in dispute)
The tenant denied liability for most of the remaining claims. He asserts the home was prone to dampness and poorly maintained, particularly in areas with wooden panelling in the bathroom, and that the landlord failed to act on reports of leaks and moisture problems. He further disputes that landlord inspections were withheld, stating inspections were conducted by Mr Davy every 3–6 months. Relevant Legal Framework
Section 40(1)(c), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): Requires tenants to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Section 40(1)(d): Requires tenants to notify the landlord of any damage or need for repair as soon as possible.
Section 49: Landlords must mitigate any loss arising from a breach. Sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B: Tenants are liable for intentional or careless damage caused during the tenancy unless they can prove otherwise. Analysis Water Charges – $608.23
This was agreed to by consent. Professional Cleaning – $1,871.63
The landlord seeks reimbursement for professional cleaning at the end of the tenancy, including mould removal, oven and kitchen cleaning, and general interior remediation. The landlord relies on an itemised invoice from [Cleaning company] and accompanying photographic evidence.
The tenant states that the property was already susceptible to dampness and mould due to its age (built in 1975) and construction style (similar to Lockwood homes with wooden panelling). He recalled reporting leaks and roof issues during inspections. The tenant argued that mould on high ceilings and walls was the result of structural issues outside her control.
While tenants are responsible for keeping premises reasonably clean and tidy, they are not liable for defects or conditions that arise from the landlord’s failure to maintain or from the design and age of the property. The invoice presented covers an extensive commercial-level clean, which includes tasks (such as mould cleaning from textured ceilings and walls, high wall cleaning, and deep moisture inspection) that exceed what a tenant would reasonably be expected to remedy themselves. There was also no evidence that a property condition report was completed at the start of the tenancy, making it difficult to assess comparative cleanliness.
Partial liability is accepted. The Tribunal allows $1,000.00 as a reasonable contribution from the tenants towards the overall cleaning cost, given the condition and age of the home and in light of the shared responsibility for mould. Rotten Flooring and Bathroom Repairs – $3,530.73
The landlord claims that water damage from the upstairs bathroom spread to adjoining bedroom floors, requiring replacement of rotted timber. The cause, according to the landlord, was a failure by the tenant to promptly report water issues.
The tenant disputes this. He says he notified the landlord of leaks and dampness throughout the tenancy and provided anecdotal references to comments made by an electrician about roof leaks. There is no expert report identifying the cause of the damage, nor confirmation of when the leak began or whether the materials (wood panelling) were fit for use in a wet area.
There is insufficient evidence to establish a clear causal link between the tenants’ actions and the damage. In the absence of an expert report, the claim must fail on the basis that the tenants’ liability for the damage has not been established on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Drapes Remediation – $1,696.40
The landlord claims the cost of cleaning, relining, and resewing 39 mould-affected drapes, supported by an invoice from [Drape repairer]. The landlord also noted the work was done at a fraction of commercial cost because his wife undertook it.
The tenant states that dampness and mould resulted from poor property conditions, not neglect.
It is likely that some damage to the drapes was contributed to by the dampness and condensation in the home. However, tenants are expected to ventilate and clean, and failure to do so likely contributed to the extent of mould growth. The Tribunal accepts partial tenant responsibility.
Compensation is assessed not on commercial cost avoidance or speculation about market rates, but on actual costs and taking depreciation into account. Given the drapes were nearly five years old and subject to wear, depreciation must be considered.
The Tribunal awards $850.00, representing half the cost claimed, adjusted for depreciation and shared responsibility. Carpet Cleaning – $339.25
The landlord claims that a leaking shower, not reported promptly by the tenants, caused carpet to become mouldy and require treatment. A specialist cleaning invoice is provided. The tenant disputes liability, asserting that moisture ingress was systemic and linked to the home’s poor drainage and waterproofing.
Moisture damage around a bathroom that spreads into a bedroom is a foreseeable outcome if not managed. The landlord’s photos show signs of water damage, and the service invoice is clear. However, again, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenants failed to report the issue in a timely manner. Given the lack of a property condition report and uncertainty about causation, full liability cannot be imposed.
The Tribunal awards $200.00 as a reasonable contribution towards carpet cleaning. Stove Replacement – $688.49
The landlord replaced a ceramic-top stove after the glass cooking surface was found to be cracked and unsafe during the tenancy. The tenants do not recall how the damage occurred but do not dispute that it occurred during their occupancy. The landlord provided an invoice from [Stove supplier] for the supply and installation of a reconditioned replacement stove at a cost of $688.49.
The damage goes beyond fair wear and tear. The tenants have not provided evidence to rebut liability under section 49B of the RTA. The Tribunal is satisfied that the stove required replacement and that the landlord acted reasonably in sourcing a second-hand unit.
However, the Tribunal must also consider the principle of depreciation. The estimated useful life for stoves and ovens is typically eight years, and this tenancy lasted approximately four years. Therefore, the tenants should not be held responsible for the full replacement cost of an item that had already depreciated by 50% during the tenancy.
Accordingly, the Tribunal allows half of the claimed amount, amounting to $344.25, which reflects fair compensation to the landlord for the depreciated value of the stove at the time of damage. Mitigation and Inspection Issues
The Tribunal notes inconsistencies in the landlord’s submissions. Despite claims that inspections were delayed or blocked, the tenant’s account and that of Mr Davy himself indicates inspections occurred at regular intervals (every 3–6 months). Landlords have a duty to manage properties in a business-like manner, and it appears opportunities existed to detect and respond to the issues sooner. While the landlord may have managed the tenancy informally, this does not remove their obligation to monitor property condition and respond to reported issues, particularly in an older home with a history of dampness. Filing Fee and Suppression Order
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful, I decline to make an order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has not sought a suppression order. However, as the tenants have successfully defended a substantial portion of the claims, the Tribunal considers it just and reasonable to suppress the tenants’ names and identifying details under section 95A(1) of the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5205571 — net $3,002.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (agreed by consent	$608.23	Water rates (agreed by consent
Cleaning	$1,000.00	Cleaning
Drapes	$850.00	Drapes
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replacement stove	$344.25	Replacement stove
Net award	$3,002.48
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,002.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Good Neighbours Real Estate Ltd As Agent For Chas Davy $3,002.48 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Good Neighbours Real Estate Ltd As Agent For Chas Davy: $3,002.48 [The tenant/s]: $117.52

Reasons

The hearing was held on 19 August 2025. Mr Rankin (agent) and Mr Davy attended for the owner. [The tenant/s] attended for the tenants.
This matter relates to a residential tenancy which commenced on 1 June 2020 and ended on 17 November 2024. The weekly rent was $780.00, with a bond of $3,120.00. The landlord has filed an application seeking compensation for a range of costs incurred at the end of the tenancy, including water rates, professional cleaning, repairs, drape remediation, carpet cleaning, and stove replacement. The claims
The landlord seeks the following: • $1,871.63 for cleaning • $3,530.73 for repair of rotten flooring and bathroom area • $1,696.40 for remediation of mould-affected drapes • $339.25 for carpet cleaning and water damage inspection • $688.49 for replacement of a damaged stove • $608.23 for water charges (this claim was agreed to by consent and is not in dispute)
The tenant denied liability for most of the remaining claims. He asserts the home was prone to dampness and poorly maintained, particularly in areas with wooden panelling in the bathroom, and that the landlord failed to act on reports of leaks and moisture problems. He further disputes that landlord inspections were withheld, stating inspections were conducted by Mr Davy every 3–6 months. Relevant Legal Framework
Section 40(1)(c), Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA): Requires tenants to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Section 40(1)(d): Requires tenants to notify the landlord of any damage or need for repair as soon as possible.
Section 49: Landlords must mitigate any loss arising from a breach. Sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B: Tenants are liable for intentional or careless damage caused during the tenancy unless they can prove otherwise. Analysis Water Charges – $608.23
This was agreed to by consent. Professional Cleaning – $1,871.63
The landlord seeks reimbursement for professional cleaning at the end of the tenancy, including mould removal, oven and kitchen cleaning, and general interior remediation. The landlord relies on an itemised invoice from [Cleaning company] and accompanying photographic evidence.
The tenant states that the property was already susceptible to dampness and mould due to its age (built in 1975) and construction style (similar to Lockwood homes with wooden panelling). He recalled reporting leaks and roof issues during inspections. The tenant argued that mould on high ceilings and walls was the result of structural issues outside her control.
While tenants are responsible for keeping premises reasonably clean and tidy, they are not liable for defects or conditions that arise from the landlord’s failure to maintain or from the design and age of the property. The invoice presented covers an extensive commercial-level clean, which includes tasks (such as mould cleaning from textured ceilings and walls, high wall cleaning, and deep moisture inspection) that exceed what a tenant would reasonably be expected to remedy themselves. There was also no evidence that a property condition report was completed at the start of the tenancy, making it difficult to assess comparative cleanliness.
Partial liability is accepted. The Tribunal allows $1,000.00 as a reasonable contribution from the tenants towards the overall cleaning cost, given the condition and age of the home and in light of the shared responsibility for mould. Rotten Flooring and Bathroom Repairs – $3,530.73
The landlord claims that water damage from the upstairs bathroom spread to adjoining bedroom floors, requiring replacement of rotted timber. The cause, according to the landlord, was a failure by the tenant to promptly report water issues.
The tenant disputes this. He says he notified the landlord of leaks and dampness throughout the tenancy and provided anecdotal references to comments made by an electrician about roof leaks. There is no expert report identifying the cause of the damage, nor confirmation of when the leak began or whether the materials (wood panelling) were fit for use in a wet area.
There is insufficient evidence to establish a clear causal link between the tenants’ actions and the damage. In the absence of an expert report, the claim must fail on the basis that the tenants’ liability for the damage has not been established on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Drapes Remediation – $1,696.40
The landlord claims the cost of cleaning, relining, and resewing 39 mould-affected drapes, supported by an invoice from [Drape repairer]. The landlord also noted the work was done at a fraction of commercial cost because his wife undertook it.
The tenant states that dampness and mould resulted from poor property conditions, not neglect.
It is likely that some damage to the drapes was contributed to by the dampness and condensation in the home. However, tenants are expected to ventilate and clean, and failure to do so likely contributed to the extent of mould growth. The Tribunal accepts partial tenant responsibility.
Compensation is assessed not on commercial cost avoidance or speculation about market rates, but on actual costs and taking depreciation into account. Given the drapes were nearly five years old and subject to wear, depreciation must be considered.
The Tribunal awards $850.00, representing half the cost claimed, adjusted for depreciation and shared responsibility. Carpet Cleaning – $339.25
The landlord claims that a leaking shower, not reported promptly by the tenants, caused carpet to become mouldy and require treatment. A specialist cleaning invoice is provided. The tenant disputes liability, asserting that moisture ingress was systemic and linked to the home’s poor drainage and waterproofing.
Moisture damage around a bathroom that spreads into a bedroom is a foreseeable outcome if not managed. The landlord’s photos show signs of water damage, and the service invoice is clear. However, again, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenants failed to report the issue in a timely manner. Given the lack of a property condition report and uncertainty about causation, full liability cannot be imposed.
The Tribunal awards $200.00 as a reasonable contribution towards carpet cleaning. Stove Replacement – $688.49
The landlord replaced a ceramic-top stove after the glass cooking surface was found to be cracked and unsafe during the tenancy. The tenants do not recall how the damage occurred but do not dispute that it occurred during their occupancy. The landlord provided an invoice from [Stove supplier] for the supply and installation of a reconditioned replacement stove at a cost of $688.49.
The damage goes beyond fair wear and tear. The tenants have not provided evidence to rebut liability under section 49B of the RTA. The Tribunal is satisfied that the stove required replacement and that the landlord acted reasonably in sourcing a second-hand unit.
However, the Tribunal must also consider the principle of depreciation. The estimated useful life for stoves and ovens is typically eight years, and this tenancy lasted approximately four years. Therefore, the tenants should not be held responsible for the full replacement cost of an item that had already depreciated by 50% during the tenancy.
Accordingly, the Tribunal allows half of the claimed amount, amounting to $344.25, which reflects fair compensation to the landlord for the depreciated value of the stove at the time of damage. Mitigation and Inspection Issues
The Tribunal notes inconsistencies in the landlord’s submissions. Despite claims that inspections were delayed or blocked, the tenant’s account and that of Mr Davy himself indicates inspections occurred at regular intervals (every 3–6 months). Landlords have a duty to manage properties in a business-like manner, and it appears opportunities existed to detect and respond to the issues sooner. While the landlord may have managed the tenancy informally, this does not remove their obligation to monitor property condition and respond to reported issues, particularly in an older home with a history of dampness. Filing Fee and Suppression Order
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful, I decline to make an order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has not sought a suppression order. However, as the tenants have successfully defended a substantial portion of the claims, the Tribunal considers it just and reasonable to suppress the tenants’ names and identifying details under section 95A(1) of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205571 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205571 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions