What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266441 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,320.00 (6373484-007) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5266441?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266441?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12522749-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266441 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,320.00 (6373484-007) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5266441?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266441?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12522749-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Rathmullen Place, Pinehill, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266441 — Cleanliness

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,320.00 (6373484-007) immediately apportioned as follows, and as calculated in the table below: Mengye Investments Limited: $1,152.24 [The tenant/s]: $3,167.76

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] (the Tenant) lived at 14 Rathmullen Place, Pinehill, Auckland 0632 (the Premises) for slightly less than five years. Up to three flatmates lived in the Premises with the Tenant.
The Landlord was Mengye Investments Limited.
The Landlord says that after the tenancy ended in April 2025 the Tenant failed to leave the Premises in a clean and tidy state, and caused damage. The Landlord also says the Tenant failed to pay water consumption charges.
At the hearing, the Tenant accepted liability for the following claims made by the Landlord: a. Water rates of $177.35; b. Replacement of keys and garage remote $131.70; and c. Changing of locks $235.54.
Given the Tenant does not dispute the above claims, I make orders for payment of those amounts from the bond by consent.
The Tenant disputes the Landlord’s remaining claims. Therefore, the issues I have to determine are: a. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to the carpet in the garage? b. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to internal walls? c. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of cleaning and deodorising the carpet inside the house? d. Did the Tenant fail to leave the garden reasonably tidy at the end of tenancy? e. Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy? f. Did the Tenant fail to replace standard lightbulbs and/or smoke alarm batteries in the Premises? g. Should either party be reimbursed their filing fee? h. Should the names of either party be suppressed?
On 7 October 2025, both parties attended the hearing at North Shore District Court. The Landlord was represented by Ms Ye. The Tenant was present, along with his flatmate Cristian Ioan. The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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.

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to the carpet in the garage?

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. 1
The Landlord seeks $402.50 compensation for damage to the garage carpet. The Landlord says the Tenant caused damage resulting in the carpet becoming crumpled (that is, not fixed to the ground) and caused two holes in the garage carpet.
The Landlord produced two photographs taken on 18 July 2020, shortly before the tenancy began, showing some edges of the garage carpet. Although not well documented by photos, the Landlord says the garage carpet was in good condition at the start of the tenancy. Photographs taken on 23 April 2025, the day the tenancy ended, show there were some areas of the garage carpet that had become lose and crumpled (that is, were not longer adhering to the concrete base), and that there were two holes, one larger than 6cm in diameter (in the landlord’s estimation) and one smaller than that. 1 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The Tenant does not deny the damage occurred during the tenancy, but says it was through normal use of the garage for parking vehicles. The Tenant says the damage occurred where the tyres of the Tenant (and flatmate’s) cars were parked – where the cars came to a stop after braking, and where the cars accelerated from. The Tenant confirmed none of the flatmates had heavy duty vehicles, only standard commuter-type vehicles. The Tenant says the damage was fair wear and tear and perhaps reflects that the garage carpet was thin and therefore was not of particularly good quality. They say they are not liable for the cost of repairing those areas.
I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the damage was more than fair wear and tear. The areas of damage as shown in the end of tenancy photographs are very likely to be the areas where the tenants’ car tyres both came to a rest and accelerated out from. Given the Tenant and flatmates used the garage for parking their vehicles over a period of nearly 5 years, and the damage occurred in areas consistent with that area being where the car tyres would have sat, I am satisfied the damage occurred through normal use of the garage for parking standard sized vehicles.
During the hearing, the Landlord indicated she could accept that where the garage carpet had become loose was caused by normal use of the garage, but says the two holes in the carpet must have been caused by some other means. I do not accept that. Given the carpet had become loose where the tyres came to a stop, it is likely the holes were caused by the loose carpet pulling and therefore tearing other areas. I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the holes were by some other means. In particular, I note that one of the holes (the largest) was within the area of loose carpet where the tyre traffic caused damage.
The Landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to internal walls?

As stated above, 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. 2
The Landlord seeks $120 compensation for damage to internal walls in the master bedroom wardrobe, upstairs lounge, downstairs study, and the internal stairwell. 2 Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The Landlord referred to a photo of the master bedroom wardrobe taken on 18 July 2020, and the written in-going inspection report which noted the walls of the upstairs lounge and downstairs study were in good condition.
The Tenant says a panel in the master bedroom wardrobe fell off during the tenancy, and the damage on the wall is where the panel had been glued to the wall. They do not accept liability for that damage.
The Tenant accepts liability for the damage to the walls in the upstairs lounge and downstairs study, noting it was damage caused by using 3M picture hooks which took some paint off when removed. The Tenants also accept liability for the area of damage at the bottom of the internal stairwell, noting it was caused when moving furniture out of the Premises.
I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenants caused the alleged damage to the master bedroom wardrobe wall. The photo taken on 18 July 2020 shows a panel was fixed to the wall. The photo produced to show the alleged damage, taken on 23 April 2025, shows marks on the wall in areas which would have been covered by the board shown in the photo taken on 18 July 2020. Given that, I am satisfied it is more likely than not that the indents/damage visible on the wall were caused by the panel coming away from the wall. The size of the damage (small) does not indicate the panel was forcibly or intentionally removed, as alleged by the Landlord. I consider it more likely that the glue or other adhesive used to secure the panel failed and the panel became lose or fell down. I find the Tenant is not liable for the damage to the wall in the master bedroom wardrobe.
Given the Tenant accepts liability for damage caused to the walls in the upstairs lounge, downstairs study and stairwell, it is appropriate that the Tenant compensate the Landlord for those repairs. The total cost of all repairs was $120. I consider an appropriate award, given the damage to the wardrobe wall was not significant is $100.
I make an order accordingly. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of cleaning and deodorising the carpet inside the house?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 3 That obligation extends to fixings and chattels, such as curtains and carpets.
The Landlord says the Tenant kept a dog on the premises without the permission of the Landlord. The Landlord says they were aware there was a dog on the Premises after receiving reports from a neighbour. They say they 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. raised it with the Tenant, who said it was only temporary while one of the flatmate’s parents were out of town and that the dog was largely confined to the deck or garage.
The Landlord says the Tenant agreed to have the carpets professionally cleaned. The Landlord says at the end of the tenancy the house had a strong odour and there was evidence, such as fur around windowsills, that the carpet had not been adequately cleaned and deodorised. The Landlord also says there was a stain in the downstairs study that could not be removed by the professional carpet cleaner. The Landlord seeks reimbursement of $655.50 being the cost incurred to have the carpet cleaned and deodorised.
The Tenant says they had one of the flatmate’s parents’ dog stay for short periods during the tenancy. They say in the last week of the tenancy they rented a carpet cleaning machine from Bunnings and carried out steam carpet cleaning. The Tenant did not produce a receipt, but referred to a bank transaction showing they paid Bunnings $111.83 on 21 April 2025. They say that was the cost of renting the carpet cleaner.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not leave the Premises reasonably clean and tidy in that there was an odour in the Premises. That is consistent with the amount of dog hair photographed around the windowsill in the downstairs study and I accept the Landlord’s evidence that she detected an odour when she attended on 23 April 2025. The Tenants accept they did have a dog in the Premises. The evidence produced by the Landlord that the Council has a “record of a dog living at 14 Rathmullen Place” suggests the dog was in the home more often than the Tenant admits.
I accept that the Tenant made some effort to clean the carpet, by hiring a carpet cleaning device, however that did not bring the Premises up to the required standard. Tenants are not required to leave carpet in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”. A professional carpet cleaner is likely to bring carpet to a standard that is higher than “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy,” therefore I do not find the Tenant is liable for the full cost of professional carpet cleaning. I consider an appropriate contribution to be half of the total cost incurred, that is $327.75.

Did the Tenant fail to leave the garden reasonably tidy at the end of tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 4 The premises includes the grounds and any gardens or lawns.
The Landlord seeks reimbursement of $150 being the cost of the landlord’s handyman removing weeds from the garden around the back deck, and some 4 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. weeds on the paths at the side of the house. The Landlord produced photographs taken on 22 March 2024 when new weedmats and fresh bark was laid in the Premises’ gardens showing the gardens were weed-free at that time. The Landlord also referred to photographs taken on 23 April 2025 which showed weeds present in some areas.
The Tenant says the garden behind the back deck was inaccessible, as the only way to access it was via a path around the side of the house. They say as soon as it rained after the weedmat was put down in March 2024, weeds began sprouting through. They say they made an effort to remove some weeds but some were too big to be removed without tools.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant did not leave the gardens reasonably tidy. I am not satisfied the Tenant attempted to remove weeds from the back garden, which had a large amount of growth. I do not accept that the area was inaccessible. I accept it could not be directly accessed from the back deck, however there was no evidence to show an impediment to the tenants accessing that area via the side of the house.
I make an order accordingly.

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 5
The Landlord says the Tenants did not leave the Premises reasonably clean and referred to photos taken on 23 April 2025. The Landlord seeks reimbursement of $206 being the cost incurred to have the Premises cleaned. An invoice for that amount was produced and records that a cleaner cleaned the kitchen, wardrobes, window frames, toilets and floors.
The Tenants say the Landlord conducted the inspection at around 12pm on 23 April 2025 and pointed out some of the areas where further cleaning was needed, such as the toilets and the dishwasher. They say they carried out a further 3+ hours of cleaning, and took photos of the condition they left it in at about 4pm on 23 April 2025. The Tenants produced those photos taken at 4pm.
As stated above, tenants are not required to leave premises immaculate. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy.” I am satisfied that the photos taken by the Tenants on the afternoon of 23 April 2025 prove it is more likely than not that the Premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. 5 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act.
Importantly, the Landlord has not proved that at the end of the tenancy, that is at midnight on 23 April 2025, the Premises were not reasonably clean and tidy. Evidence that the Premises may not have meet that standard earlier that day is not sufficient, particularly where the Tenants say further cleaning was carried out later that day.
The Landlord’s claim is dismissed. Did the Tenant fail to replace standard lightbulbs and/or smoke alarms in the

Premises?

At the end of the tenancy, a tenant must replace standard light bulbs and the batteries in smoke alarms. Where a chattel, such as a smoke alarm, has been removed, a tenant must replace the chattel, or compensate the landlord for the cost of doing so.
The Landlord says the Tenant failed to replace 3 LED bulbs, one in the kitchen and two in the master bedroom ensuite. The Landlord also says the Tenant did not replace one heat lamp bulb in the master bedroom ensuite. The Landlord says two smoke alarms were missing entirely – one upstairs and one downstairs.
The Tenant accepts one LED bulb in the kitchen should have been replaced but says the other LED bulbs were within a heat lamp fixture in the bathroom and they did not believe they could replace them without removing part of the fixture, or employing an electrician. The Tenant says they accept one smoke alarm was removed from upstairs but dispute another was missing downstairs.
The Landlord says the bathroom LED lights were easy to replace and did not require an electrician, nor for the fixture to be removed. I am satisfied the photographs prove three LED lights required new bulbs and the Tenant is liable to reimburse the Landlord for the cost of replacing those. The photos do not indicate there was any impediment to the Tenant replacing the LED bulbs within the heat lamp fixture.
Given the Tenant accepts the kitchen pendant LED light bulb should have been replaced, I am also satisfied the Tenant should reimburse the Landlord for that cost.
I am not satisfied a heat lamp is a standard light bulb and do not consider that the responsibility of the Tenant to replace.
The Tenant accepts they removed a smoke alarm from the ceiling upstairs. Given that, the Tenant should reimburse the Landlord for the cost of replacing that smoke alarm. The Tenant disputed that a smoke alarm was missing from downstairs and the Landlord did not produce any photos taken at the end of the tenancy to prove their claim. I therefore dismiss the claim in relation to the downstairs smoke alarm.
The Tenant is ordered to reimburse the Landlord for the cost of replacing the three LED light bulbs (total $9.00) and one smoke alarm ($20.80).
The amounts ordered are proved.

Should either party be reimbursed their filing fee?

The Landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claim, therefore the Tenant is not ordered to reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee.
Equally, while the Landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded, they have succeeded with some of their claims and have been awarded more than the amount offered by the Tenant to settle the matter.
Given that the Landlord’s claim had some merit, the Landlord is not ordered to reimburse the Tenant’s filing fee.

Should the names of either party be suppressed?

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 6
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 7
In their counterclaim, the Tenant applied for suppression of their name. At the hearing, the Landlord also brought a fresh applciation for suppression.
As neither party’s application (or cross-application) was wholly or substantially successful, neither party is automatically entitled to name suppression.
I have considered whether I should grant name suppression order for either party having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under section 95A(4) of the Act.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. In my view, the party’s applications for name suppression both fail for the following reasons: 6 Section 95A(1) of the Act. 7 Section 95A(4) of the Act. a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders but that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the parties and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the parties’ interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of either party’s names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266441 — Cleanliness at 14 Rathmullen Place, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266441 — Cleanliness at 14 Rathmullen Place, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

Order

Reasons

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to the carpet in the garage?

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to internal walls?

Did the Tenant fail to leave the garden reasonably tidy at the end of tenancy?

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy?

Premises?

Should either party be reimbursed their filing fee?

Should the names of either party be suppressed?

Property management

Order

Reasons

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to the carpet in the garage?

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage to internal walls?

Did the Tenant fail to leave the garden reasonably tidy at the end of tenancy?

Did the Tenant fail to leave the Premises reasonably clean at the end of tenancy?

Premises?

Should either party be reimbursed their filing fee?

Should the names of either party be suppressed?

Property management