What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259659 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 5259659?

Builders Costs: $1,605.40 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Curtain Bracket: $9.00 awarded to landlord; Door Mesh: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Door Stops: $10.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Garden Edging: $13.68 awarded to landlord; Gully Trap Cover: $19.28 awarded to landlord; Paint: $16.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $58.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $22.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259659?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12703428-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259659 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 5259659?

Builders Costs: $1,605.40 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Curtain Bracket: $9.00 awarded to landlord; Door Mesh: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Door Stops: $10.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Garden Edging: $13.68 awarded to landlord; Gully Trap Cover: $19.28 awarded to landlord; Paint: $16.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $58.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $22.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259659?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12703428-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259659 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259659 — Property damage | 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 5259659 — net $1,815.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Blind replacement	$58.00	Blind replacement
Carpet replacement	$500.00	Carpet replacement
Door mesh	$235.00	Door mesh
Gully trap cover	$19.28	Gully trap cover
Paint	$16.00	Paint
Curtain bracket	$9.00	Curtain bracket
Garden edging	$13.68	Garden edging
Builders costs	$1,605.40	Builders costs
Door stops	$10.25	Door stops
Net curtain replacement	$22.00	Net curtain replacement
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,815.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,815.61

Claims and awards for application 5259659 — net $1,815.61 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Blind replacement

Amount: $58.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Blind replacement

Carpet replacement

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement

Door mesh

Amount: $235.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door mesh

Gully trap cover

Amount: $19.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Gully trap cover

Paint

Amount: $16.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Paint

Curtain bracket

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 the landlords name and identifying details.
Kiani Te Ronngamate Parkes must pay [The landlord/s] $1,815.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of DescriptionLandlord Blind replacement$58.00 Carpet replacement$500.00 Door mesh$235.00 Gully trap cover$19.28 Paint$16.00 Curtain bracket$9.00 Garden edging$13.68 Builders costs$1,605.40 Door stops$10.25 Net curtain replacement$22.00 Cleaning$400.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,915.61 Minus bond-$1,100.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,815.61 $1,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlords against the tenant. The tenancy has ended, the landlords now seek various orders of compensation.
Only the landlords appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 16 August 2023, ending on 4 May 2025.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlords have raised various claims with her, but she has denied liability, referring to fair wear and tear. I will proceed on the basis that the tenant’s position is that the claims are simply fair wear and tear and therefore not her responsibility.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations.
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 fractionally 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

The claims fall into three categories that is damaged, cleaning, and missing channels. Claim 1 – Damage claims
The landlords have claimed a number of items of damage to the premises.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Roller blind damage
The landlords state that the cord for the roller blind was missing. The blind was existing in the house when the house was purchased, so more than 5 years old.
I have considered the photographs provided. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, there is no evidence to support that the damage is fair wear and tear. The onus then moves to the tenant, to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, and she has not done that.
This claim has been established, but given the likely age of the blinds, a depreciation must be applied, in order to ensure that the landlords are compensated for their loss, at the time the loss was incurred.
Landlords have claimed the replacement cost of $116. It is fair that the tenant pay half of that, I therefore order compensation for the blind of $58. Oven
The landlords seek compensation for a replacement oven, which was not working at the end of the tenancy. The landlords contacted an electrician who advised that it required new thermostats and it was more cost-effective to replace it. The tenant did not tell the tenants it was not working.
On balance, I must conclude that the landlords have not proven that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. Ovens like all electrical appliances, do not last forever, componentry fails, and either require repairs or replacement. In those circumstances, that becomes a maintenance issue, which is the landlord’s responsibility. Another way to look at it, is that when appliances wear out, it is a fair wear and tear issue.
The landlords noted that the tenant did not advise them that the oven was not working at the end of the tenancy. I accept that is the case, but it does not change the tenant’s non-liability. Certainly, a tenant does have a responsibility under the RTA to advise when repairs of maintenance are required, but if they fail to do so, they are liable for any additional cost that would arise. In this case, it seems that the oven failed because of components in the oven no longer working, the cost to the landlords would be the same if the tenant had told them straight away, versus finding out at the end of the tenancy.
I cannot see that the landlords have incurred any additional loss because the tenant did not tell them the oven was not working, there is no basis upon which compensation can be ordered, and therefore this application must be declined. Carpet
The landlords seek compensation for the replacement of the carpet. The landlords state the carpets were extensively stained, and the carpet cleaner advised it could not be cleaned. The tenants have claimed insurance, and needed to pay an excess of $500.00.
I have considered the pre-and post post-tenancy photographs, and I accept that the evidence favours a conclusion that the carpet has been heavily stained during this tenancy. The extent of the staining was such that a commercial cleaner did not consider the carpets could be cleaned, and so of course replacement was the only option. That occurred, and the landlords have incurred a $500 loss from the insurance access.
The extent of the carpet staining is not fair wear and tear, it is beyond that. I am satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenants have not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, so I find she is liable for the insurance excess. Door mesh
The tenants seek compensation to repair the door mesh on the door. The insect mesh has been removed or torn from the bottom of the door.
I accept that the door mesh has been damaged or replaced, it was otherwise missing at the end of the tenancy. The damage would not be fair wear and tear, and I accept it occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proven that the damage would be anything other than careless or intentional, so she is liable for the full cost. Gully Trap cover
The landlords seek compensation to replace a gully trap cover that was broken when the tenancy was returned.
I accept this occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the full repair cost. Paint
The landlord seeks compensation for touching up the interior walls to repair damage to the plaster board and wall surface. Further there were scratch marks near the door which the landlords considered were probably from a dog.
I accept the wall damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the paint supply cost. Curtain rail bracket
The landlords state that the curtain rail brackets were bent and broken, and one was missing with a missing cap. The landlords seek $9.00 for the replacement items.
I accept that damage to the bracket occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the full repair cost. Garden edging
The landlords state that the garden edging was missing and needed replacement. This was installed about three years ago.
I accept this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the full repair cost. Weatherboard and door damage and builders work
The landlords state that under the bedroom window there was damage to a weatherboard, which looks to have been hit or damaged somehow. The landlords are not sure what would have caused the damage.
The landlord states that handles were missing from the wardrobe doors, and they had a hole when returned.
The pantry door had three damaged hinges, and a cupboard had a broken hinge.
The landlord has claimed costs of $1,605.40, which is the builders costs for that work.
I accept this damage to these various areas occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the full repair cost. Claim 2 - Chattels
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels – door stops. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. Door stops
The landlord seeks compensation for 4 missing door stops, that were supplied at the start of the tenancy, but not returned.
I accept these items were not returned, so the tenant is liable for the replacement cost. Net Curtains
The landlords state that the net curtains in the entrance were missing at the end of the tenancy, the landlords seek $22.00 for their replacement.
This cost is ordered in full, I accept the curtains were missing. Claim 3 - Cleaning
The landlord seeks costs for cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states there were cigarette butts in the wardrobe, curtains unclean, kitchen unclean, shower unclean. The tenants advise they spent about a week cleaning the premises.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I have considered the photographs provided, and I agree with the tenants, that the premises were very dirty when returned. They were far from the required standard of being reasonably clean.
Work was undertaken by the landlord. As I explained to the landlords today, while they have provided a quotation for commercial cleaning, I cannot award an amount that would be the equivalent of a commercial operators charge, but it is fair that the landlords are reimbursed for their time.
When I step back and consider the photographs, and the likely work that would have been required, I award $400 for the landlord’s time in undertaking the cleaning.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding.
In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, and given the landlord has been mostly successful, landlord name suppression is granted.

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 5259659 — net $1,815.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Blind replacement	$58.00	Blind replacement
Carpet replacement	$500.00	Carpet replacement
Door mesh	$235.00	Door mesh
Gully trap cover	$19.28	Gully trap cover
Paint	$16.00	Paint
Curtain bracket	$9.00	Curtain bracket
Garden edging	$13.68	Garden edging
Builders costs	$1,605.40	Builders costs
Door stops	$10.25	Door stops
Net curtain replacement	$22.00	Net curtain replacement
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,815.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,815.61

Claims and awards for application 5259659 — net $1,815.61 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Blind replacement

Amount: $58.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Blind replacement

Carpet replacement

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement

Door mesh

Amount: $235.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door mesh

Gully trap cover

Amount: $19.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Gully trap cover

Paint

Amount: $16.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Paint

Curtain bracket

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 the landlords name and identifying details.
Kiani Te Ronngamate Parkes must pay [The landlord/s] $1,815.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of DescriptionLandlord Blind replacement$58.00 Carpet replacement$500.00 Door mesh$235.00 Gully trap cover$19.28 Paint$16.00 Curtain bracket$9.00 Garden edging$13.68 Builders costs$1,605.40 Door stops$10.25 Net curtain replacement$22.00 Cleaning$400.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$2,915.61 Minus bond-$1,100.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,815.61 $1,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlords against the tenant. The tenancy has ended, the landlords now seek various orders of compensation.
Only the landlords appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in her absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 16 August 2023, ending on 4 May 2025.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlords have raised various claims with her, but she has denied liability, referring to fair wear and tear. I will proceed on the basis that the tenant’s position is that the claims are simply fair wear and tear and therefore not her responsibility.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 and expectations.
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 fractionally 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

The claims fall into three categories that is damaged, cleaning, and missing channels. Claim 1 – Damage claims
The landlords have claimed a number of items of damage to the premises.
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Roller blind damage
The landlords state that the cord for the roller blind was missing. The blind was existing in the house when the house was purchased, so more than 5 years old.
I have considered the photographs provided. I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, there is no evidence to support that the damage is fair wear and tear. The onus then moves to the tenant, to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, and she has not done that.
This claim has been established, but given the likely age of the blinds, a depreciation must be applied, in order to ensure that the landlords are compensated for their loss, at the time the loss was incurred.
Landlords have claimed the replacement cost of $116. It is fair that the tenant pay half of that, I therefore order compensation for the blind of $58. Oven
The landlords seek compensation for a replacement oven, which was not working at the end of the tenancy. The landlords contacted an electrician who advised that it required new thermostats and it was more cost-effective to replace it. The tenant did not tell the tenants it was not working.
On balance, I must conclude that the landlords have not proven that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. Ovens like all electrical appliances, do not last forever, componentry fails, and either require repairs or replacement. In those circumstances, that becomes a maintenance issue, which is the landlord’s responsibility. Another way to look at it, is that when appliances wear out, it is a fair wear and tear issue.
The landlords noted that the tenant did not advise them that the oven was not working at the end of the tenancy. I accept that is the case, but it does not change the tenant’s non-liability. Certainly, a tenant does have a responsibility under the RTA to advise when repairs of maintenance are required, but if they fail to do so, they are liable for any additional cost that would arise. In this case, it seems that the oven failed because of components in the oven no longer working, the cost to the landlords would be the same if the tenant had told them straight away, versus finding out at the end of the tenancy.
I cannot see that the landlords have incurred any additional loss because the tenant did not tell them the oven was not working, there is no basis upon which compensation can be ordered, and therefore this application must be declined. Carpet
The landlords seek compensation for the replacement of the carpet. The landlords state the carpets were extensively stained, and the carpet cleaner advised it could not be cleaned. The tenants have claimed insurance, and needed to pay an excess of $500.00.
I have considered the pre-and post post-tenancy photographs, and I accept that the evidence favours a conclusion that the carpet has been heavily stained during this tenancy. The extent of the staining was such that a commercial cleaner did not consider the carpets could be cleaned, and so of course replacement was the only option. That occurred, and the landlords have incurred a $500 loss from the insurance access.
The extent of the carpet staining is not fair wear and tear, it is beyond that. I am satisfied the damage occurred during the tenancy. The tenants have not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, so I find she is liable for the insurance excess. Door mesh
The tenants seek compensation to repair the door mesh on the door. The insect mesh has been removed or torn from the bottom of the door.
I accept that the door mesh has been damaged or replaced, it was otherwise missing at the end of the tenancy. The damage would not be fair wear and tear, and I accept it occurred during the tenancy. The tenant has not proven that the damage would be anything other than careless or intentional, so she is liable for the full cost. Gully Trap cover
The landlords seek compensation to replace a gully trap cover that was broken when the tenancy was returned.
I accept this occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the full repair cost. Paint
The landlord seeks compensation for touching up the interior walls to repair damage to the plaster board and wall surface. Further there were scratch marks near the door which the landlords considered were probably from a dog.
I accept the wall damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the paint supply cost. Curtain rail bracket
The landlords state that the curtain rail brackets were bent and broken, and one was missing with a missing cap. The landlords seek $9.00 for the replacement items.
I accept that damage to the bracket occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the full repair cost. Garden edging
The landlords state that the garden edging was missing and needed replacement. This was installed about three years ago.
I accept this damage occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the full repair cost. Weatherboard and door damage and builders work
The landlords state that under the bedroom window there was damage to a weatherboard, which looks to have been hit or damaged somehow. The landlords are not sure what would have caused the damage.
The landlord states that handles were missing from the wardrobe doors, and they had a hole when returned.
The pantry door had three damaged hinges, and a cupboard had a broken hinge.
The landlord has claimed costs of $1,605.40, which is the builders costs for that work.
I accept this damage to these various areas occurred during the tenancy, it is not fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability. The tenant is liable for the full repair cost. Claim 2 - Chattels
The landlord has claimed compensation for missing chattels – door stops. Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenant’s responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. Door stops
The landlord seeks compensation for 4 missing door stops, that were supplied at the start of the tenancy, but not returned.
I accept these items were not returned, so the tenant is liable for the replacement cost. Net Curtains
The landlords state that the net curtains in the entrance were missing at the end of the tenancy, the landlords seek $22.00 for their replacement.
This cost is ordered in full, I accept the curtains were missing. Claim 3 - Cleaning
The landlord seeks costs for cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states there were cigarette butts in the wardrobe, curtains unclean, kitchen unclean, shower unclean. The tenants advise they spent about a week cleaning the premises.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
I have considered the photographs provided, and I agree with the tenants, that the premises were very dirty when returned. They were far from the required standard of being reasonably clean.
Work was undertaken by the landlord. As I explained to the landlords today, while they have provided a quotation for commercial cleaning, I cannot award an amount that would be the equivalent of a commercial operators charge, but it is fair that the landlords are reimbursed for their time.
When I step back and consider the photographs, and the likely work that would have been required, I award $400 for the landlord’s time in undertaking the cleaning.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding.
In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, and given the landlord has been mostly successful, landlord name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259659 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259659 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions