What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5219457 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 5219457?

Cleaning: $51.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $105.52 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5219457?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5219457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12397258-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5219457 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 5219457?

Cleaning: $51.75 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $105.52 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5219457?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5219457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12397258-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

231 Hampden Street, Nelson South, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5219457 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5219457 — net $157.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$51.75	Cleaning
Water rates	$105.52	Water rates
Net award	$157.27
Bond	$344.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$157.27

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Leon Dalziel $157.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $344.35 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Leon Dalziel: $157.27 [The tenant/s]: $187.08

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A support person accompanied the tenant.
The tenant’s name was changed during the tenancy. This order uses the tenant’s legal name. The instruction to the Bond Centre for the distribution of the bond notes the prior name used at lodgement and the subsequent change for the avoidance of any confusion there.
The tenant sought the return of the balance of her bond. The claim regarding the laundry was withdrawn.
The landlord has applied for water rates and compensation via the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent water rates?

The tenancy ended on 29 May 2025. The landlord provided the final water account, dated 30 May 2025 (after the tenancy ended). That invoice totalled $105.52. No water invoices were presented to the tenant during the tenancy. These had been retained by the owner. Section 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides tenant liability for any exclusive use of water during the tenancy. Related consumption information via invoices must be presented in a timely manner to ensure appropriate behavioural or maintenance if the indicated consumption appears excessive.
The landlord sought a higher contribution to water rates as incurred.
It is fair for the tenants to pay something towards their usage. However, a landlord has an obligation to provide accurate and timely invoices to the tenants on a regular basis so that they are not lumped with a large bill at the end of the tenancy 1 .
Given the non-presentment of prior invoices during the tenancy I consider the tenant is only liable for the final water invoice as presented. The final invoice amount of $105.52 is awarded to the landlord from the bond.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

1 See for example Braganza v Saia (DC) CIV2010-004-2024, Woollams v Simpson, CIV-2005-004- 1583 and Nordon 3202 Ltd v Shailaja Nair [2018] NZDC 17499.

The landlord claimed the tenant failed to return all areas to a reasonable condition. These were discrete areas of an otherwise premises left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord provided an invoice for $138.00 that it sought compensated by the tenant. Photos were provided in support.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition 2 . The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
In this instance, the owner did additional cleaning at their own cost.
The landlord provided the tenant with a list of cleaning tasks post-tenancy. The tenant accepted some of them and addressed these on return to the premises.
Responsibility for a number of uncompleted tasks was disputed.
The instructions to the cleaner was “we have a few cleaning jobs required to be completed at the property. As this will be coming out of the tenants bond please do not do any work that is not on the list below. I will be putting through another list of cleaning that is to be invoice separately to these jobs.
The tasks detailed were:
The dishwasher + food in the bottom
Mould on the joinery in 1 lounge sliding door + clean mould of the back of the net curtain
Extractor fan filters
Heat pump filters
Kitchen draws
Bottom of oven - food
Shower drain 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Sticky residue on the windows from bubble wrap ( Inside only) • Lounge window facing the road. • Bedroom Windows in both rooms
Toilet clean
Each claim was reviewed. The evidence was considered, and submissions heard from both parties.
Having considered each claim and any tenant liability, I find there were areas missed by the tenant that required further cleaning to return that area to a reasonable standard. The extent of the cleaning effort required to address those is considered less than the invoiced amount. I have assumed approximately two hours of effort reflected in the $138.00 invoice. Given the cleaner was already there completing other tasks on behalf of the owner, any tenant cost is considered labour only.
I have determined 45 minutes a reasonable labour allowance for a professional cleaner to attend to wipe downs of the dishwasher, bottom of over and kitchen draws, remove any legacy bubble wrap residue from the two windows evidenced, and a spot clean of the one area of the toilet missed. Of the other tasks, I do not consider tenant liability, evidenced or statutory, has been established.
I award $51.75 from the bond towards the cleaning costs incurred by the landlord. Filing fee
I leave each party to carry their respective filing fee. Neither has been wholly or substantially successful with the claims as lodged. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in their application. The issues for determination were not significant and the tenant response to the landlord’s claims, as reflected in the reduced monetary orders, has validated their stance. I acknowledge the strong support of the landlord in applying tenant name suppression and I agree that it is appropriate in this instance to grant the request.
Tenant name suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5219457 — net $157.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$51.75	Cleaning
Water rates	$105.52	Water rates
Net award	$157.27
Bond	$344.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$157.27

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Leon Dalziel $157.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $344.35 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Leon Dalziel: $157.27 [The tenant/s]: $187.08

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. A support person accompanied the tenant.
The tenant’s name was changed during the tenancy. This order uses the tenant’s legal name. The instruction to the Bond Centre for the distribution of the bond notes the prior name used at lodgement and the subsequent change for the avoidance of any confusion there.
The tenant sought the return of the balance of her bond. The claim regarding the laundry was withdrawn.
The landlord has applied for water rates and compensation via the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent water rates?

The tenancy ended on 29 May 2025. The landlord provided the final water account, dated 30 May 2025 (after the tenancy ended). That invoice totalled $105.52. No water invoices were presented to the tenant during the tenancy. These had been retained by the owner. Section 39 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides tenant liability for any exclusive use of water during the tenancy. Related consumption information via invoices must be presented in a timely manner to ensure appropriate behavioural or maintenance if the indicated consumption appears excessive.
The landlord sought a higher contribution to water rates as incurred.
It is fair for the tenants to pay something towards their usage. However, a landlord has an obligation to provide accurate and timely invoices to the tenants on a regular basis so that they are not lumped with a large bill at the end of the tenancy 1 .
Given the non-presentment of prior invoices during the tenancy I consider the tenant is only liable for the final water invoice as presented. The final invoice amount of $105.52 is awarded to the landlord from the bond.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

1 See for example Braganza v Saia (DC) CIV2010-004-2024, Woollams v Simpson, CIV-2005-004- 1583 and Nordon 3202 Ltd v Shailaja Nair [2018] NZDC 17499.

The landlord claimed the tenant failed to return all areas to a reasonable condition. These were discrete areas of an otherwise premises left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord provided an invoice for $138.00 that it sought compensated by the tenant. Photos were provided in support.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition 2 . The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
In this instance, the owner did additional cleaning at their own cost.
The landlord provided the tenant with a list of cleaning tasks post-tenancy. The tenant accepted some of them and addressed these on return to the premises.
Responsibility for a number of uncompleted tasks was disputed.
The instructions to the cleaner was “we have a few cleaning jobs required to be completed at the property. As this will be coming out of the tenants bond please do not do any work that is not on the list below. I will be putting through another list of cleaning that is to be invoice separately to these jobs.
The tasks detailed were:
The dishwasher + food in the bottom
Mould on the joinery in 1 lounge sliding door + clean mould of the back of the net curtain
Extractor fan filters
Heat pump filters
Kitchen draws
Bottom of oven - food
Shower drain 2 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Sticky residue on the windows from bubble wrap ( Inside only) • Lounge window facing the road. • Bedroom Windows in both rooms
Toilet clean
Each claim was reviewed. The evidence was considered, and submissions heard from both parties.
Having considered each claim and any tenant liability, I find there were areas missed by the tenant that required further cleaning to return that area to a reasonable standard. The extent of the cleaning effort required to address those is considered less than the invoiced amount. I have assumed approximately two hours of effort reflected in the $138.00 invoice. Given the cleaner was already there completing other tasks on behalf of the owner, any tenant cost is considered labour only.
I have determined 45 minutes a reasonable labour allowance for a professional cleaner to attend to wipe downs of the dishwasher, bottom of over and kitchen draws, remove any legacy bubble wrap residue from the two windows evidenced, and a spot clean of the one area of the toilet missed. Of the other tasks, I do not consider tenant liability, evidenced or statutory, has been established.
I award $51.75 from the bond towards the cleaning costs incurred by the landlord. Filing fee
I leave each party to carry their respective filing fee. Neither has been wholly or substantially successful with the claims as lodged. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant requested suppression in their application. The issues for determination were not significant and the tenant response to the landlord’s claims, as reflected in the reduced monetary orders, has validated their stance. I acknowledge the strong support of the landlord in applying tenant name suppression and I agree that it is appropriate in this instance to grant the request.
Tenant name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5219457 — Cleanliness at 231 Hampden Street, Nelson South, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5219457 — Cleanliness at 231 Hampden Street, Nelson South, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions