What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212054 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5212054?

Cleaning: $339.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $183.50 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $4.75 awarded to landlord; Replace Kettle: $10.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212054?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212054?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12117056-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5212054 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5212054?

Cleaning: $339.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $183.50 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $4.75 awarded to landlord; Replace Kettle: $10.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5212054?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5212054?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12117056-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5212054 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5212054. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$339.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$183.50	Cleaning
Light bulb replacement	$4.75	Light bulb replacement
Replace kettle	$10.00	Replace kettle

Both parties attended the hearing.

There are two claims. The Tenant wants to recover the bond. The Landlord wants the following compensation: Repairs to blinds$150 Replacement of light switch cover$4.17 Replacement of missing kettle$71.25 Cleaning (including car parking charges)$233.50 Carpet cleaning and stain removal (including car parking charges)$339.00 Lightbulb replacement$4.75 Filing fee$27 The Landlord’s claim Repairs to blinds

Under section 49A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), there is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. However, under section 49B of the RTA, a tenant can be liable where: a. the landlord proves that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear; and b. the tenant does not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless or intentional act or omission.

An invoice dated 17 March 2025 shows the Landlord has paid $339 to Ven-lu-ree Blind Services to clean and repair three venetian blinds. The Landlord seeks to recover $150 of that cost, which it says is the estimated cost of fixing the damage to two of the blinds. It seems that a small number of slats on two blinds were damaged and required replacement. The Landlord suspects that the blinds were damaged by someone reaching through the blinds to open or close the windows.

The Tenant agrees that the blinds were damaged during the two and a half years of her tenancy. She thinks the damage happened about a year ago and may have been caused by the wind. She says that she regularly left the window behind the blinds open to allow air to flow into the apartment.

I am not satisfied that the Landlord has proven that the blind damage was more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is deterioration due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed.

The age of the blinds and their condition at the start of the tenancy are unknown, and the photographs of the blind show that the blinds were certainly not new. The photographs also show that blinds appear to be made of a lightweight plastic and are the only covering over those external windows, meaning the blinds would need to have been regularly open and closed to allow light into the premises.

The Tenant’s use of the blinds was reasonable, and she was not careless in opening the windows behind the blinds. The premises were small, and it is understandable that she wanted to ensure airflow through the premises. The need to do so was evident in other photographs provided by the Landlord, which showed mould on some of the windows. That mould would only have worsened if the Tenant did not regularly open the windows behind the blinds.

Given the minor nature of the damage, the unknown age of the blinds, the material from which they are made and the fact that the blinds needed to be regularly opened and closed to allow light and air into the apartment, I find that the damage was no more than ordinary wear and tear.

The Landlord’s claim to recover the cost of repairing the blinds is therefore dismissed. Replacement of light switch and light bulb

Under the tenancy agreement, the Tenant was required to replace all light bulbs. At the end of the tenancy, one light bulb required replacement. The Landlord is entitled to recover the $4.75 cost of replacing that bulb.

The Landlord is not entitled to recover the cost of replacing the cracked light switch cover. The Landlord provided no photographs showing the condition of the cover, so I cannot be satisfied that any damage was more than fair wear and tear. Cleaning and carpet cleaning costs

The Tenant was required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 1 I accept that she attempted to clean the premises, but the evidence shows that her attempts were insufficient.

One of the Trustees of the Landlord spent two days cleaning the apartment, and the Landlord seeks to recover $200 as a contribution towards the time spent cleaning. It also seeks to recover the $33.50 for the cost of parking on one of those days.

The Landlord has provided photographs of the premises taken on 12 March 2025. Those photographs show that the premises had not been adequately cleaned, including that the shower, kitchen cabinets and wall beside the toilet had not been adequately cleaned, there were significant quantities of lint and dust on the laundry appliances, there were spots of black mould on the windows and the exterior of the refrigerator had not been properly cleaned.

Having assessed the photographs, I find that the $200 cleaning cost is too high for the cleaning required. The shower need a good clean, but the rest of the issues required surface cleaning only. I therefore find that a cost of $150 was reasonable for the cleaning required to bring these premises to the required condition. I order that the Tenant is to pay that amount to the Landlord. The Landlord is also entitled to recover the $33.50 cost of parking. Carpet cleaning 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 40(1)(e)(ii).

The Tenant spilled orange juice on the carpet. The resulting stain, which is approximately 30 centimetres across, is more than fair wear and tear. It was caused by tenant’s carelessness – both in spilling the orange juice and then in omitting to take reasonable steps to remove the stain while it was fresh. The Tenant says that she tried to wash the stain with water but does not appear to have put in a real effort to remove the stain when it happened.

At the end of the tenancy, the Landlord paid $333.50 to AA Carpet Cleaning (2024) Ltd to clean the carpets in the apartment. It is entitled to recover that cost. The Landlord is also entitled to recover the $5.50 cost of paying for parking for the carpet cleaner. Replacement of kettle

The Landlord has provided a chattel list for the premises dated 15 February 2022. That chattel list includes a kettle. The Landlord says that kettle was missing and the end of the tenancy and has paid $71.25 to replace the kettle.

The Tenant says that she left the kettle in a cupboard at the premises. I accept that Landlord’s evidence that the kettle is now missing, but the Landlord is not entitled to recover the amount it seeks.

The Landlord has provided no evidence to show how old that kettle was, other than it was at least two and a half years old. The kettle must have depreciated in value, so I cannot allow the Landlord to recover the full cost of replacing the kettle. The Landlord has also not provided evidence as to what brand the kettle was, so it is impossible to know whether the Landlord has now replaced like with like.

I therefore allow the Landlord to recover $10, which reflects that the kettle would have had some functional value notwithstanding its age. That amount also reflects that new kettles can be purchased for as little as $10. Filing fee and name suppression

Each of the parties paid a $27 filing fee. Because each has had a significant degree of success, I make no order that they pay the other’s filing fee. I also order name suppression for both parties, given their substantial success in their respective claims.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5212054. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$339.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$183.50	Cleaning
Light bulb replacement	$4.75	Light bulb replacement
Replace kettle	$10.00	Replace kettle

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Landlord’s claim to recover the cost of repairing the blinds is therefore dismissed. Replacement of light switch and light bulb

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212054 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5212054 — Cleanliness

At a glance

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