What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241494 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $160.00 (3376592-006) to Midastouch

How much money was awarded in case 5241494?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $43.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241494?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241494?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12255976-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5241494 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $160.00 (3376592-006) to Midastouch

How much money was awarded in case 5241494?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $43.99 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241494?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241494?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12255976-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1A Nukumea Common, Orewa, Orewa 0931 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5241494 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Introduction

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241494 — net $33.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$43.99	Light bulbs/batteries
Net award	$33.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$33.99

Mr Korshid (the tenant) lived at 1A Nukumea Common, Orewa (the premises) for approximately 16 months. After the tenancy came to an end on 3 February 2025, Ms Sparks, on behalf of Midastouch Rentals Limited (the landlord) contacted the tenant stating the premises had not been left reasonably clean and noted areas where damage had occurred.

In an email sent on 5 February 2025, the tenant requested until 12 February to remedy the cleaning and repair the shower. The tenant stated the other areas of alleged damage were the result of wear and tear. By reply email sent on 7 February 2025, the landlord agreed the tenant could have access to the premises until 12 February 2025 to clean and carry out repairs.

The landlord was not satisfied with the cleaning and/or the repairs carried out by the tenant. On 21 April 2025, the landlord filed a claim in the Tribunal seeking compensation for cleaning and repairs to the shower.

At the hearing, the parties confirmed the bond of $2,600 had been partially refunded to the tenant. The parties confirmed $2,480 was refunded to the tenant, therefore $160 of the bond remains with the Bond Centre. 1 Following determination of the issues below, I make an award for refund of the remaining $160 held by the Bond Centre.

At the outset of the hearing, the tenant confirmed he did not dispute the landlord’s claim seeking compensation for replacement lightbulbs, being $43.99. Accordingly, by consent, I make that order.

The remaining issues for me to determine are: a. Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy? b. Did the tenant fail to repair the shower base to a reasonable standard? If not, is the tenant liable to pay the landlord the applicable insurance excess? c. Is the tenant liable to pay one week’s rent in compensation for being granted access to the premises until 12 February 2025? 1 The landlord stated the bond was released to the tenant without the landlord’s consent. I did not have before me any evidence showing when, or on what basis, the bond was refunded to the tenant. As stated to the parties, even if such evidence was presented, any dispute as to whether or not it should have been refunded is a matter between the landlord and the Bond Centre. Tribunal’s approach to the issues

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 establish their claim “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.

I apply this approach for each issue, discussed separately below.

Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy: section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The landlord provided photographs taken on 12 February 2025 and says they show surfaces were left dusty, the rangehood and its filters were not clean, there was hair in the kitchen sink and areas such as the shower glass were not cleaned.

The landlord provided an invoice from a professional cleaner dated 28 February 2025 for $150 for cleaning of these areas only. The landlord says the cleaning was carried out on 25 February 2025.

The tenant says he believed he left the premises in a reasonably clean condition. The tenant provided his own photos taken on 11 February 2025. 2

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”. I am satisfied the landlord’s photos taken on 12 February 2025 show the areas described were not left reasonably clean. 2 The landlord granted the tenant further time after the end of the tenancy, until 3pm on 12 February 2025, to bring the premises up to a reasonably clean standard.

I am also satisfied the cost incurred to clean those areas was reasonable for the work required. I find the landlord’s claim proved and make an order for cleaning as sought. Did the tenant fail to repair the shower base to a reasonable standard? If not, is the tenant liable to pay the landlord the applicable insurance excess?

As recorded by email exchange between 5 – 7 February 2025, the parties agreed the tenant was permitted to repair damage to the base of the shower. 3 A photograph of the damage taken by the landlord on 3 February 2025 shows a chip of 3 – 5mm in the resin base of the shower.

The landlord confirmed the tenant could carry out repairs but stated it needed to be “a smooth, durable finish like it was at new tenancy handover” and that the expectation was it be “fixed professionally as it is a plumbing/watertight issue.”

The landlord produced a photograph taken 12 February 2025 showing the repair carried out by the tenant.

The tenant says he applied an aqua epoxy resin made for shower floors. The tenant says he then painted it with enamel paint made for waterproof area.

The landlord says the repair was not done to the required standard and seeks compensation of $500, being the excess payable on an insurance claim. The landlord says the entire shower box requires replacing, and provided evidence that a similar shower box would cost $1,337 to purchase.

The landlord did not file evidence of the insurance policy held. The landlord also confirmed they had not lodged a claim for replacement of the shower with their insurer.

I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the repair completed by the tenant was not to a reasonable standard, that is that it did not “make good” the damage. 4 That is because the repair appears to have been carried out with appropriate materials, and the finish as depicted in the photograph taken 12 February 2025 shows the chip in the base has been filled in. I also note that the landlord stated the shower is at least five years old. It would not be unreasonable for a shower of that age to show some signs of wear, and I do not accept that the finish of the tenant’s repair renders the shower unusable or impacts its waterproofing.

Even if I am wrong in my finding that the repair was adequate, given the landlord has not made an insurance claim for replacement, I am not satisfied the landlord has incurred the lost claimed. Therefore, even if I had been 3 Pursuant to s49B(5) of the Act. 4 Pursuant to s49B(5) of the Act. satisfied the repair was inadequate, I would have dismissed the claim on the basis the landlord has not proved the cost was actually incurred. Is the tenant liable to pay one week’s rent in compensation for being granted access to the premises until 12 February 2025?

The landlord seeks compensation of $680, being the equivalent of one week’s rent on the basis the tenant had access to the premises until 12 February 2025 to carry out cleaning and repairs. This was a new claim added on the day of the hearing. 5

The landlord confirmed the parties did not discuss the issue of rent or compensation for the period 4 – 12 February 2025, but the landlord says it follows that, because the landlord granted the tenant’s request to have access to the property to carry out cleaning and repairs, the landlord is entitled to compensation for being unable to prepare the property for the next tenants.

The tenant says he believed he left the premises clean and tidy when he vacated on 3 February 2025. He says he received the landlord’s email on 4 February 2025 at 8:14pm with a list of issues. On 5 February 2025, the tenant sent the landlord an email requesting access to the premises until 5pm on 12 February 2025 to remedy the issues he agreed with. The landlord replied at 12:56pm on 7 February 2025 agreeing the tenant could have until 3pm on 12 February 2025.

The tenant says at no point did the landlord request, nor did the tenant agree, to the payment of rent or compensation for the additional time taken to clean and repair the shower. The tenant says if he had agreed to paying rent for the additional time, he would have taken time off work or made other arrangements to complete the work sooner.

In general, any agreement between a landlord and tenant should be in writing. If the landlord intended to only agree to the tenant having access to carry out cleaning and repairs if they paid an additional one week of rent, they should have stated that in the email sent on 7 February 2025. The landlord did not state that.

I do not accept the landlord’s submission that it simply follows that by allowing the tenant access, the landlord is entitled to seek rent for that period (or part thereof). The parties did not agree to the tenant moving his belongings back into the premises or residing there, only that he have access to carry out cleaning and repairs. In those circumstances, it was not an agreement to change the tenancy end date. 5 At the hearing, the tenant consented to it being dealt with alongside the other claims.

As the parties did not explicitly or implicitly agree to the tenant having access to the premises on the condition he pay one week’s rent to the landlord in compensation, I dismiss the landlord’s claim.

Reasons

Introduction

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5241494 — net $33.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries	$43.99	Light bulbs/batteries
Net award	$33.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$33.99