Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255379 — Cleanliness

Decided 25 Aug 2025 · Published 25 Aug 2025 · Application 5255379

Cleanliness

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

B King

Claims & awards

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

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s applications are dismissed
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of part the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy ended.
I have considered the end of tenancy inspection photographs. What they show is that the tenant made a very considerable effort to clean the premises and that in almost all respects they were left clean and tidy.
The photographs of the oven show that further cleaning could have been done. However, in the context of this tenancy it would have been reasonable to let the tenant know that the landlord did not consider the oven reasonably and ask her to clean it more. I am satisfied the tenant would have done so. That would be consistent with the landlord’s obligation under s.49 RTA to take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from the breach and would have avoided the loss for which the landlord now claims compensation.

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.
The landlord claims compensation for the cost of replacing a panel door lock cover.
Photographs included with the repair invoice show that the surface of the cover was severely scratched.
That photograph was taken some time after the tenancy ended. The end of tenancy photographs show that the cover was blistered and peeling and difficult to see through. The condition of the cover at the end of the tenancy appears more likely to have resulted from deterioration of the material itself than damage externally caused to it.
The obvious conclusion is that the scratching occurred between the end of the tenancy and when the cover was later replaced.
I do not find it proved that the need for the cover to be replaced resulted from damage caused during the tenancy.
The landlord claims compensation for the cost of wall touch ups.
The exit photographs show that there were some marks to walls in the premises. The question is whether those marks constitute damage that the tenant should compensate the landlord for, or whether they are from fair wear and tear which a tenant is not responsible for (see s.49A(2)) RTA)
In the case of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94 (as cited in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by Stewart Benson p 122) the District Court noted: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition.... [W]here a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
For a quite new property like this one, any deterioration in condition will result from the first tenancies and will be immediately obvious.
The photographs provided by the landlord do not show significant damage to the premises beyond the deterioration in condition that inevitably arises from occupation of premises as noted in Nixon.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Cleanliness NO ADDRESS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s40(1), s40(2)

Key findings

Dispute theme: cleaning

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5255379 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5255379?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255379?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255379?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12314829-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of part the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy when the tenancy ended.

I have considered the end of tenancy inspection photographs. What they show is that the tenant made a very considerable effort to clean the premises and that in almost all respects they were left clean and tidy.

The photographs of the oven show that further cleaning could have been done. However, in the context of this tenancy it would have been reasonable to let the tenant know that the landlord did not consider the oven reasonably and ask her to clean it more. I am satisfied the tenant would have done so. That would be consistent with the landlord’s obligation under s.49 RTA to take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from the breach and would have avoided the loss for which the landlord now claims compensation.

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.

The landlord claims compensation for the cost of replacing a panel door lock cover.

Photographs included with the repair invoice show that the surface of the cover was severely scratched.

That photograph was taken some time after the tenancy ended. The end of tenancy photographs show that the cover was blistered and peeling and difficult to see through. The condition of the cover at the end of the tenancy appears more likely to have resulted from deterioration of the material itself than damage externally caused to it.

The obvious conclusion is that the scratching occurred between the end of the tenancy and when the cover was later replaced.

I do not find it proved that the need for the cover to be replaced resulted from damage caused during the tenancy.

The landlord claims compensation for the cost of wall touch ups.

The exit photographs show that there were some marks to walls in the premises. The question is whether those marks constitute damage that the tenant should compensate the landlord for, or whether they are from fair wear and tear which a tenant is not responsible for (see s.49A(2)) RTA)

In the case of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94 (as cited in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by Stewart Benson p 122) the District Court noted: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition.... [W]here a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”

For a quite new property like this one, any deterioration in condition will result from the first tenancies and will be immediately obvious.

The photographs provided by the landlord do not show significant damage to the premises beyond the deterioration in condition that inevitably arises from occupation of premises as noted in Nixon.