What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5228093 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 5228093?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $402.86 awarded to landlord; Door In Hallway: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228093?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12004497-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5228093 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 5228093?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $402.86 awarded to landlord; Door In Hallway: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228093?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12004497-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5228093 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228093. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 Feb 2025	$402.86	Rent arrears to 16 Feb 2025
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$400.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Walls	$500.00	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Door in hallway	$34.50	Repairs: Door in hallway
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,514.36 of the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay $245.64 of the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) to Marehea Tawhiaorangi Poinga immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the remote hearing. Two attempts were made to call the tenant on her Australian mobile number, as provided to the landlord by email dated 14 March 2025. Both calls went to voicemail.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning and damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $402.86.
As at the date of the hearing, the landlord stated they had not received any payments towards rent arrears.
The amount ordered is proved.

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. Cleaning
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord said the tenant moved to Australia quickly, and had acknowledged to the landlord that they had not had time to clean the premises.
Photos taken during the exit inspection on 19 February 2025 show surfaces were not wiped, there were crumbs and debris in the kitchen drawers and the carpets throughout the premises were not vacuumed.
The landlord produced an invoice dated 7 April 2025 for cleaning, totalling $276. The landlord also produced an email chain, in which the landlord advised the tenant they were claiming the cost of $276 for cleaning (amongst other claims). The tenant does not respond accepting that cost, but also does not dispute it (she did respond to dispute the carpet cleaning costs).
A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
A professional cleaner is likely to bring a property to a standard that is higher than “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy,” therefore I do not accept the tenant is liable for the full cost of a professional clean.
I consider an appropriate contribution to the cleaning costs is $150.
The amount ordered is proved. Carpet cleaning
The landlord says the tenant is also liable for the cost of having the carpets cleaned. The landlord produced an invoice dated 18 March 2025 for carpet steam cleaning and stain treatment totalling $598.
The landlord produced an entry inspection report dated 26 July 2023 which records the floor coverings were in “excellent” or “good” condition and that the carpet did not have stains in the lounge, hallway or any of the three bedrooms.
The landlord says the tenant had a dog in the premises, and that when the property manager attended on 19 February 2025 for the exit inspection, the premises had a strong odour of dog inside. The landlord also referred to photos taken during the exit inspection which the landlord said showed carpet stains in the lounge and hallway.
A tenant is not required to steam clean carpet upon exiting a tenancy, however, it must be left in a “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy” condition. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet smelled of dog, and therefore required a steam clean to remove the odour.
As with the cleaning, however, a professional steam clean of the carpets is likely to bring the floor coverings to a standard that is higher than “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy,” therefore I do not accept the tenant is liable for the full cost of the carpets being steam cleaned.
I consider an appropriate contribution to the cleaning costs is $400.
The amount ordered is proved.

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The property manager confirmed the landlord did hold insurance for tenant damage, however stated no claim was made as each claim (for each individual piece of damage) would not exceed the $500 excess. Damage to walls
The landlord says the tenant damaged the walls in the lounge, and two of the bedrooms. The landlord refers to the entry report and exit report as evidence the damage was caused by the tenant. The landlord notes the property was freshly painted prior to the tenant moving in, as was recorded in the entry report.
The landlord says repair work has been carried out. The landlord relies on a quote which records “Plastering and painting: x10 walls” $1,730 (+GST). At the hearing, the landlord confirmed the work had been completed but the property manager did not have a final invoice. At the end of the hearing, the property manager was given further time to file the final invoice, or other proof of the final cost of repairing the damaged walls, but no further evidence was filed by the time stated.
I accept the photos show the tenant caused damage to the walls in two bedrooms and in the lounge. I also accept the gouges and marks are more than fair wear and tear. However, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the cost of repairing those areas (only) was $1,989.50, as claimed. I am not satisfied the landlord has shown the tenant damaged 10 walls, as per the quote for repair.
I consider an appropriate contribution to the cost of repairing the damaged walls in the lounge and bedrooms is $500.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the paintwork at the start of the tenancy and its likely lifespan.
The amount ordered is proved. Damage to door in hallway
The landlord says the tenant damaged a door in the hallway, which was not repaired when the walls were repaired (simply due to oversight), but was subsequently repaired. The landlord referred to the entry report and exit report as evidence the damage was caused by the tenant.
The landlord has provided an invoice dated 31 March 2025 as proof the landlord was charged $30 (+GST) to repair the hole in the hallway door.
The amount ordered is proved. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Should the landlord’s identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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. See s 95A of the RTA.
The landlord applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address. As the application was successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228093. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16 Feb 2025	$402.86	Rent arrears to 16 Feb 2025
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$400.00	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Walls	$500.00	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Door in hallway	$34.50	Repairs: Door in hallway
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,514.36 of the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay $245.64 of the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) to Marehea Tawhiaorangi Poinga immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the remote hearing. Two attempts were made to call the tenant on her Australian mobile number, as provided to the landlord by email dated 14 March 2025. Both calls went to voicemail.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for cleaning and damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 19 February 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $402.86.
As at the date of the hearing, the landlord stated they had not received any payments towards rent arrears.
The amount ordered is proved.

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. Cleaning
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord said the tenant moved to Australia quickly, and had acknowledged to the landlord that they had not had time to clean the premises.
Photos taken during the exit inspection on 19 February 2025 show surfaces were not wiped, there were crumbs and debris in the kitchen drawers and the carpets throughout the premises were not vacuumed.
The landlord produced an invoice dated 7 April 2025 for cleaning, totalling $276. The landlord also produced an email chain, in which the landlord advised the tenant they were claiming the cost of $276 for cleaning (amongst other claims). The tenant does not respond accepting that cost, but also does not dispute it (she did respond to dispute the carpet cleaning costs).
A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
A professional cleaner is likely to bring a property to a standard that is higher than “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy,” therefore I do not accept the tenant is liable for the full cost of a professional clean.
I consider an appropriate contribution to the cleaning costs is $150.
The amount ordered is proved. Carpet cleaning
The landlord says the tenant is also liable for the cost of having the carpets cleaned. The landlord produced an invoice dated 18 March 2025 for carpet steam cleaning and stain treatment totalling $598.
The landlord produced an entry inspection report dated 26 July 2023 which records the floor coverings were in “excellent” or “good” condition and that the carpet did not have stains in the lounge, hallway or any of the three bedrooms.
The landlord says the tenant had a dog in the premises, and that when the property manager attended on 19 February 2025 for the exit inspection, the premises had a strong odour of dog inside. The landlord also referred to photos taken during the exit inspection which the landlord said showed carpet stains in the lounge and hallway.
A tenant is not required to steam clean carpet upon exiting a tenancy, however, it must be left in a “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy” condition. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet smelled of dog, and therefore required a steam clean to remove the odour.
As with the cleaning, however, a professional steam clean of the carpets is likely to bring the floor coverings to a standard that is higher than “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy,” therefore I do not accept the tenant is liable for the full cost of the carpets being steam cleaned.
I consider an appropriate contribution to the cleaning costs is $400.
The amount ordered is proved.

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The property manager confirmed the landlord did hold insurance for tenant damage, however stated no claim was made as each claim (for each individual piece of damage) would not exceed the $500 excess. Damage to walls
The landlord says the tenant damaged the walls in the lounge, and two of the bedrooms. The landlord refers to the entry report and exit report as evidence the damage was caused by the tenant. The landlord notes the property was freshly painted prior to the tenant moving in, as was recorded in the entry report.
The landlord says repair work has been carried out. The landlord relies on a quote which records “Plastering and painting: x10 walls” $1,730 (+GST). At the hearing, the landlord confirmed the work had been completed but the property manager did not have a final invoice. At the end of the hearing, the property manager was given further time to file the final invoice, or other proof of the final cost of repairing the damaged walls, but no further evidence was filed by the time stated.
I accept the photos show the tenant caused damage to the walls in two bedrooms and in the lounge. I also accept the gouges and marks are more than fair wear and tear. However, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the cost of repairing those areas (only) was $1,989.50, as claimed. I am not satisfied the landlord has shown the tenant damaged 10 walls, as per the quote for repair.
I consider an appropriate contribution to the cost of repairing the damaged walls in the lounge and bedrooms is $500.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the paintwork at the start of the tenancy and its likely lifespan.
The amount ordered is proved. Damage to door in hallway
The landlord says the tenant damaged a door in the hallway, which was not repaired when the walls were repaired (simply due to oversight), but was subsequently repaired. The landlord referred to the entry report and exit report as evidence the damage was caused by the tenant.
The landlord has provided an invoice dated 31 March 2025 as proof the landlord was charged $30 (+GST) to repair the hole in the hallway door.
The amount ordered is proved. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Should the landlord’s identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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. See s 95A of the RTA.
The landlord applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address. As the application was successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228093 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228093 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions