Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5239873 — Cleanliness at 18 Braggs Avenue, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920
Decided 23 Dec 2025 · Published 23 Dec 2025 · Application 5239873
- Cleanliness
Order
- [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Property Brokers Limited as Agent for Stephen & Cheryl Casey $527.00 immediately, calculated below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which h was held by teleconference. Mr Henrik appeared for the tenants.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- An Order was made on 2 March 2025 ending the tenancy on 7 March 2025, for rent arrears to the end of the tenancy and for payment of the bond to the landlord (application 5153155).
- An Order as made in this application on 29 August 2025 dealing with disposal of items left at the preemies by Mr Hendrik when he vacated. The hearing was adjourned to today so the landlord’s additional claims could be provided to the tenants and evidence in support provided. The Claims
- The landlord seeks the following compensation: a. Insurance excess for kitchen floor replacement - $900.00 b. Wall repair - 454.25 c. Mat replacement (4) - $137.92 d. Hose replacement - $32.98 e. Owners time for cleaning and grounds work - $943.00
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.
- I have spent some time viewing the exit inspection photographs which are provided in 360 o view.
- They appear to show the interior of the premises left in reasonably clean and tidy condition, although the exit inspection notes record the separate areas inspected as not being clean.
- The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in reasonably clean and tidy condition, not “market ready”.
- The owners claim compensation for 12 hours cleaning @ $35.00 per hour. Their notes say that there had been smoking inside the house, meaning deep cleaning was required to deal with the odours.
- My finding is that although the premises were left reasonably tidy, additional cleaning work was required to bring them to reasonable condition, for which some compensation should be paid to the owners. I assess that compensation at $300.00.
- The grounds at the property are extensive. Mr Hendrik acknowledges that having lived there alone for the latter part of the tenancy, he did struggle to keep on top of the grounds. That is confirmed by the exit photographs.
- I find it proved that the owners needed to spend time bringing the grounds back to reasonable condition, for which they should be compensated.
- Caution is always required when assessing self-generated claims. The Tribunal can only make an assessment of what would be fair compensation for the owners having to do work the tenants should have done. Generally compensation for that work would not be paid at an hourly rate of $50.00 per hour.
- I award compensation ad 8 hours x $35.00
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. Flooring
- The Tribunal has been provided with details of the owner’s insurance which confirms that an excess of $900.00 is payable on any claim being made.
- A quote for replacement of the kitchen and dining room vinyl (though the dining room is carpeted) totalling $3,644.35 has been provided.
- There is no information about whether an insurance claim was lodged, what the assessor determined about the damage, whether the claim was accepted or whether the flooring has in fact been replaced.
- Fundamentally, the photo evidence does not provide evidence of damage that requires replacement of the flooring. The exit inspection says about the kitchen flooring, “Dark grey vinyl flooring in good condition with some minor dirt present. There are two marks that have been made when our tenant has moved the fridge.”
- I do not find that claim proved. Wall repairs
- A quote for repair of a dent in an upstairs bedroom has been provided, for $454.25.
- There is no information about whether that work has been done and therefore a loss has been caused to the owners – in which case a tax invoice could have been provided.
- The exit inspection notes for bedroom 2 says, “Our tenant has damaged the wall as per photo 15 the rest [multiple scuff marks and a scratch near the skirting, some nail holes present] are historic.” I was unable to identify that tenant damage in the photo evidence. I cannot be sure that the repair work, if done, did not also address the historic damage noted.
- I do not find that claim proved. Mat and hose replacement
- There items are not recorded in a chattels list. Some time was spent during the hearing trying to identify what mats are shown in the entry photos as compared to the exit photos. Some mats were left but it is not clear whether they are the same ones there when the tenancy began.
- Mr Hendrik has given direct evidence, under promise, that the only mats he removed from the premises were those that he had brought, with the mats left there, ones that were provided at the start of the tenancy. His direct evidence is that the hose he used at the premises was one he had brought.
- Where a party gives direct evidence, under promise, of something they have personal knowledge of, very strong circumstantial evidence is needed to prove their evidence is incorrect. The evidence provided by the landlord does not meet that threshold. I do not find that claim proved.
- Because the landlord has had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.