What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230691 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 5230691?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit To 14/2/2025: $348.67 awarded to tenant; To Lounge Carpet: $260.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230691?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12300732-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230691 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 5230691?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit To 14/2/2025: $348.67 awarded to tenant; To Lounge Carpet: $260.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230691?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12300732-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

150 Lowes Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5230691 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

150 Lowes Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5230691 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230691 — net $408.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: to lounge carpet	$260.00		Repairs: to lounge carpet
Cleaning: driveway stains	$250.00		Cleaning: driveway stains
Replacement lightbulbs	$20.00		Replacement lightbulbs
Cleaning including garage floor	$200.00		Cleaning including garage floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit to 14/2/2025		$348.67	Rent credit to 14/2/2025
Total award	$757.00	$348.67
Net award	$408.33
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$408.33

Claims and awards for application 5230691 — net $408.33 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: to lounge carpet

Amount: $260.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: to lounge carpet

Cleaning: driveway stains

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: driveway stains

Replacement lightbulbs

Amount: $20.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement lightbulbs

Cleaning including garage floor

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning including garage floor

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — The pre-tenancy inspection photos show that there was damage to the dining room carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenants say the extension of the da…
Walls and Doors — There is insufficient evidence to establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The pre-inspection report confirms that most rooms had marks on the wa…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $408.33 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $408.33 [The tenant/s]: $2,591.67

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14/2/2025. The parties agree there was a rent credit (after deduction of the final water bill).

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. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises, including the garage floor reasonably clean and tidy. The amount ordered is less than that claimed.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). the evidence confirms the property was not provided in a clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The evidence establishes that there was a small amount of cleaning required only to meet the “reasonable” standard,
The landlord has claimed for the replacement cost of a wheelie bin, however the tenant’s evidence that the Council will replace the bin free of charge is accepted. The landlord should pursue that option.
The tenants’ evidence that $250 is reasonable reimbursement for removing the stains from the driveway is accepted as is their submission that they are not responsible for cleaning the unstained part of the driveway.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
The amounts ordered are 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpet in the lounge and dining room was damaged.
The landlord is claiming a $1,000 insurance excess per room as compensation.
The tenants have agreed to pay $260 as a reasonable cost of repairing the lounge carpet. They have provided an estimate confirming this is a reasonable cost of repairing/patching the damaged area of carpet, with carpet taken from the wardrobe. A landlord has a duty to mitigate loss. If repairs are reasonable then this cost will be awarded, particularly when the carpet is 17 years old.
The claim for repairs to the dining carpet is dismissed. The pre-tenancy inspection photos show that there was damage to the dining room carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenants say the extension of the damaged area is due to fair wear and tear. The house was built in 2008. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is therefore likely the carpet was 17 years old at the end of the tenancy.
The IRD depreciation schedule confirms that carpets have a maximum useful lifespan of 15.5 years. I accept the tenant’s submission that the extension of the damaged area is because of fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim for repairs and repainting of walls and doors is dismissed. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The pre-inspection report confirms that most rooms had marks on the walls at the beginning of the tenancy, as would be expected with paintwork that is 17 years old. The tenant’s dispute that they have intentionally or carelessly damaged any of the surfaces. The landlord has not proven the claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties’ requests for name suppression are approved. The applicants as the application is partly successful and the tenants as their bond has covered their liability and there is negligible public interest in publishing their names.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230691 — net $408.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: to lounge carpet	$260.00		Repairs: to lounge carpet
Cleaning: driveway stains	$250.00		Cleaning: driveway stains
Replacement lightbulbs	$20.00		Replacement lightbulbs
Cleaning including garage floor	$200.00		Cleaning including garage floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit to 14/2/2025		$348.67	Rent credit to 14/2/2025
Total award	$757.00	$348.67
Net award	$408.33
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$408.33

Claims and awards for application 5230691 — net $408.33 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: to lounge carpet

Amount: $260.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: to lounge carpet

Cleaning: driveway stains

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: driveway stains

Replacement lightbulbs

Amount: $20.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacement lightbulbs

Cleaning including garage floor

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning including garage floor

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — The pre-tenancy inspection photos show that there was damage to the dining room carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenants say the extension of the da…
Walls and Doors — There is insufficient evidence to establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The pre-inspection report confirms that most rooms had marks on the wa…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $408.33 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $408.33 [The tenant/s]: $2,591.67

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 14/2/2025. The parties agree there was a rent credit (after deduction of the final water bill).

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. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises, including the garage floor reasonably clean and tidy. The amount ordered is less than that claimed.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). the evidence confirms the property was not provided in a clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy.
Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The evidence establishes that there was a small amount of cleaning required only to meet the “reasonable” standard,
The landlord has claimed for the replacement cost of a wheelie bin, however the tenant’s evidence that the Council will replace the bin free of charge is accepted. The landlord should pursue that option.
The tenants’ evidence that $250 is reasonable reimbursement for removing the stains from the driveway is accepted as is their submission that they are not responsible for cleaning the unstained part of the driveway.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
The amounts ordered are 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpet in the lounge and dining room was damaged.
The landlord is claiming a $1,000 insurance excess per room as compensation.
The tenants have agreed to pay $260 as a reasonable cost of repairing the lounge carpet. They have provided an estimate confirming this is a reasonable cost of repairing/patching the damaged area of carpet, with carpet taken from the wardrobe. A landlord has a duty to mitigate loss. If repairs are reasonable then this cost will be awarded, particularly when the carpet is 17 years old.
The claim for repairs to the dining carpet is dismissed. The pre-tenancy inspection photos show that there was damage to the dining room carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenants say the extension of the damaged area is due to fair wear and tear. The house was built in 2008. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is therefore likely the carpet was 17 years old at the end of the tenancy.
The IRD depreciation schedule confirms that carpets have a maximum useful lifespan of 15.5 years. I accept the tenant’s submission that the extension of the damaged area is because of fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim for repairs and repainting of walls and doors is dismissed. There is insufficient evidence to establish that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The pre-inspection report confirms that most rooms had marks on the walls at the beginning of the tenancy, as would be expected with paintwork that is 17 years old. The tenant’s dispute that they have intentionally or carelessly damaged any of the surfaces. The landlord has not proven the claim.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties’ requests for name suppression are approved. The applicants as the application is partly successful and the tenants as their bond has covered their liability and there is negligible public interest in publishing their names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230691 — Cleanliness at 150 Lowes Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230691 — Cleanliness at 150 Lowes Road, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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