What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5211751 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 5211751?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $157.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $179.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211751?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11967125-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5211751 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 5211751?

Cleaning: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $157.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $179.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5211751?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5211751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11967125-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5211751 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5211751 — net $503.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$140.00	9. I will award three hours of cleaning at $35/hr.
Pest control: Cockroaches	$157.00	Pest control: Cockroaches
Water rates	$179.00	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$503.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$503.00

The tenancy began on 15 November 2024 and ended on 16 March 2025.

The landlord seeks cleaning and pest treatment costs. The landlord’s claim for water rates is not disputed.

The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 11 June 2025. [The landlord/s] and Mr Deol participated in the hearing. Cleaning

Tenants must leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy” at the end of tenancy. 1

[The landlord/s] said that cleaning was necessary around the shower (glass, drain, skirting), and on various floors and surfaces in the house. [The landlord/s] and her husband did the cleaning themselves.

[The landlord/s] provided photographs of the ‘problem areas’.

Mr Deol said that he may have forgotten to clean out the shower drain but otherwise the premises were cleaned to a reasonable standard at the end of the tenancy.

It appears that the premises were generally clean and tidy, but [The landlord/s]’s photographs show that a few areas required more attention.

I will award three hours of cleaning at $35/hr. Cockroaches

[The landlord/s] said that: a. The house was newly built in July 2023. b. There was one tenancy before this one, and there were no signs of cockroaches at that time. c. There were no signs of cockroaches at the start of this tenancy in November 2024. d. The tenants didn’t raise any concerns about cockroaches during this tenancy. e. At the final inspection she opened the dishwasher and found it infested with cockroaches. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)

[The landlord/s] purchased and set off a ‘cockroach bomb’, and she purchased and used a dishwasher cleaner product.

The cockroach bomb had the unfortunate effect of dispersing the cockroaches through the house, but not killing many of them.

[The landlord/s] engaged a pest treatment specialist ([company]) who carried out pest treatment at a cost of $471.50.

Mr Deol said that he did not use the dishwasher during the tenancy, and he was not aware of the infestation. He said that he saw the occasional cockroach during the tenancy, but nothing to raise any concerns about an infestation.

[The landlord/s]’s written submission suggests that that tenants are responsible for the infestation, principally because the infestation occurred during their tenancy, with a suggestion that perhaps the cockroaches were introduced to the property on the tenants’ furniture or appliances.

Although that is possible, it is entirely speculative. [The landlord/s]’s own internet research (produced in evidence) states that “a single female German cockroach can spawn tens of thousands of descendants in just one year”.

The presence of pests, including infestations, is an environmental reality that is not necessarily a consequence of either a breach of the tenant’s obligations (such as the obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy) or of the landlord’s obligations (such as the obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair).

That can make the allocation of the cost of dealing with an infestation conceptually difficult. Is it a tenant cost or a landlord cost, or both?

The Tenancy Tribunal is required to determine disputes between landlords and tenants “according to the substantial merits and justice of the case”. 2

Applying that principle, I will hold the tenants liable for one-third of the pest treatment cost on the grounds that: a. I accept that the tenants were not aware of the infestation because it was concentrated in the dishwasher and the tenants did not use the dishwasher. b. It is not proven that the tenants caused the infestation, or that they allowed it to develop by failing to take reasonable steps to address it. They do, however, have an over-arching obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. Filing fee, name suppression, bond 2 Section 85(2) RTA

The landlord has been “substantially successful” in the application. I have awarded the landlord compensation in respect of all parts of her claim, albeit not the full amounts that she was claiming.

On that basis: a. I will also award the landlord the filing fee for this application 3 ; and b. The landlord’s request for name suppression is granted. 4

The tenant’s request for name suppression is not granted. The tenant was not substantially successful in the application, and there are no special grounds for exercising the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression to any party. 5

The landlord will receive $503.00 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5211751 — net $503.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$140.00	9. I will award three hours of cleaning at $35/hr.
Pest control: Cockroaches	$157.00	Pest control: Cockroaches
Water rates	$179.00	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$503.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$503.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: : :

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 15 November 2024 and ended on 16 March 2025.
The landlord seeks cleaning and pest treatment costs. The landlord’s claim for water rates is not disputed.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 11 June 2025. [The landlord/s] and Mr Deol participated in the hearing. Cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy” at the end of tenancy. 1
[The landlord/s] said that cleaning was necessary around the shower (glass, drain, skirting), and on various floors and surfaces in the house. [The landlord/s] and her husband did the cleaning themselves.
[The landlord/s] provided photographs of the ‘problem areas’.
Mr Deol said that he may have forgotten to clean out the shower drain but otherwise the premises were cleaned to a reasonable standard at the end of the tenancy.
It appears that the premises were generally clean and tidy, but [The landlord/s]’s photographs show that a few areas required more attention.
I will award three hours of cleaning at $35/hr. Cockroaches
[The landlord/s] said that: a. The house was newly built in July 2023. b. There was one tenancy before this one, and there were no signs of cockroaches at that time. c. There were no signs of cockroaches at the start of this tenancy in November 2024. d. The tenants didn’t raise any concerns about cockroaches during this tenancy. e. At the final inspection she opened the dishwasher and found it infested with cockroaches. 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
[The landlord/s] purchased and set off a ‘cockroach bomb’, and she purchased and used a dishwasher cleaner product.
The cockroach bomb had the unfortunate effect of dispersing the cockroaches through the house, but not killing many of them.
[The landlord/s] engaged a pest treatment specialist ([company]) who carried out pest treatment at a cost of $471.50.
Mr Deol said that he did not use the dishwasher during the tenancy, and he was not aware of the infestation. He said that he saw the occasional cockroach during the tenancy, but nothing to raise any concerns about an infestation.
[The landlord/s]’s written submission suggests that that tenants are responsible for the infestation, principally because the infestation occurred during their tenancy, with a suggestion that perhaps the cockroaches were introduced to the property on the tenants’ furniture or appliances.
Although that is possible, it is entirely speculative. [The landlord/s]’s own internet research (produced in evidence) states that “a single female German cockroach can spawn tens of thousands of descendants in just one year”.
The presence of pests, including infestations, is an environmental reality that is not necessarily a consequence of either a breach of the tenant’s obligations (such as the obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy) or of the landlord’s obligations (such as the obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair).
That can make the allocation of the cost of dealing with an infestation conceptually difficult. Is it a tenant cost or a landlord cost, or both?
The Tenancy Tribunal is required to determine disputes between landlords and tenants “according to the substantial merits and justice of the case”. 2
Applying that principle, I will hold the tenants liable for one-third of the pest treatment cost on the grounds that: a. I accept that the tenants were not aware of the infestation because it was concentrated in the dishwasher and the tenants did not use the dishwasher. b. It is not proven that the tenants caused the infestation, or that they allowed it to develop by failing to take reasonable steps to address it. They do, however, have an over-arching obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy. Filing fee, name suppression, bond 2 Section 85(2) RTA
The landlord has been “substantially successful” in the application. I have awarded the landlord compensation in respect of all parts of her claim, albeit not the full amounts that she was claiming.
On that basis: a. I will also award the landlord the filing fee for this application 3 ; and b. The landlord’s request for name suppression is granted. 4
The tenant’s request for name suppression is not granted. The tenant was not substantially successful in the application, and there are no special grounds for exercising the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression to any party. 5
The landlord will receive $503.00 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211751 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5211751 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions