What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5271619 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 5271619?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment: $139.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271619?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12243050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5271619 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 5271619?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment: $139.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271619?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12243050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5271619 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5271619 — Tenancy dispute | 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 5271619 — net $166.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment	$139.00	Rent overpayment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$166.00
Bond	$437.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$166.00

Claims and awards for application 5271619 — net $166.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent overpayment

Amount: $139.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Rent overpayment

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $166.00

Bond

Tenant $437.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $166.00

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — for lack of evidence proving its claim and because the tenants have provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost as the premise was at standard th…
Stain Removal Costs — Reimbursement of filing fee

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Glen Lightbody must pay [The tenants] $166.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $437.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant name suppressed] spoke on behalf of the tenants as [Tenant name suppressed] is in the United Kingdom and [Tenant name suppressed] had an urgent work commitment that did not allow him to attend. [Tenant name suppressed] also attended the hearing. A female flatmate also attended the hearing, but she was never named on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Why has the landlord continued to hold the rent overpayment?

The tenancy ended on 17 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the tenants overpaid rent by $139.00 that it has held to cover the cost of the cleaning of the carpet, in addition to holding back $437.00 from the bond to also cover this cost.
The landlord must immediately pay this overpayment of rent back to the tenants.

Did the tenants 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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.” 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The landlord says the tenants did not leave the carpet reasonably clean and tidy, that it was generally dirty throughout the house from all the tenants that had come and gone through the premise since 2021, and that there were stains on the carpet in the master bedroom, one other bedroom, the lounge and dining room that required additional stain removal treatment.
The tenants confirmed they had the carpet cleaned at the end of their tenancy and that they left the carpet in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. They also state they are not responsible for the carpet stains and provided photographic evidence that the bedroom stains existed prior to the start of their tenancy and that there was no evidence of the lounge and dining stains in the exit inspection.
The tenants also confirmed their tenancy commenced on 15 March 2023 and not in 2021. Therefore, they correctly stated that they can only be held liable for the premise not being left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy, or in a similar condition to when their tenancy commenced.
The property managers evidence suggests that the carpet had not been cleaned prior to the tenancy commencing, despite the number of tenants and flatmates that the property managers say had come and gone out of the premise.
The landlord’s claims are based on the fact that [Tenant name suppressed] was a flatmate from 2021 and that he should be liable for stains and dirty carpet from 2021 as he was part of the group that caused these stains. Additionally, the landlord’s claims are based on the carpet in the entire premise requiring a good clean after four years of the premise housing multiple tenants and flatmates.
The law is clear, the tenants are liable for the cost of carpet cleaning if the premise was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy or in a similar condition to how they received the premise at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants provided photographic evidence of the day they had finished cleaning after they had moved all their belongings out of the premise. The photographs shows the premise was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state, or at least similar to the condition the carpet was in at the start of their tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claim and because the tenants have provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost as the premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”.

Are 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the tenants stained the carpets in the master bedroom, one other bedroom, the lounge and dining room during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants provided photographic evidence of the master bedroom and other bedroom carpet at the start of their tenancy. The stains in these photographs are identical to those in the exit inspection photograph.
The tenants have also produced a copy of the exit inspection that makes no mention of stains in the lounge and dining room carpet. These stains were identified three weeks after the tenancy had ended by a second property manager, and not by the property manager that had conducted the exit inspection. The second property manager states she found these additional stains when she went to the premise to recheck the bedroom stains.
The property manager says the lounge and dining room caret was new in 2021 and therefore these tenants are liable for these stains. The tenancy did not commence until 15 March 2023, two years after the new carpet was laid.
The landlord had no photographs of the lounge and dining room carpets at the start of the tenancy that proves they were pristine and not stained at that time. The landlord has failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove its claims on the balance of probabilities. Its claim for stain removal costs is dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Glen Lightbody has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claim its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name 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.
The tenants have wholly succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.
The landlord has also applied for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claim. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct in this matter, in that it has tried to force the tenants to pay for damage it knew had occurred during prior tenancies and for cleaning costs to bring the carpet to a better condition than the tenants had received the property in.
The landlords engaged seasoned property managers that should have reasonably known these tenants could not be held liable for the cleaning and stain removal costs sought and it failed to produce any persuasive evidence whatsoever to support its claims.
It produced evidence that showed the tenants were prepared to make a settlement offer in good faith instead of putting all parties through a hearing, despite stating clearly they knew they were not liable for these costs. The landlord refused to settle, instead continuing with the Tribunal hearing, and then it sought to rely on these settlement discussions as evidence of the tenants having accepted liability for some of the cleaning costs.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

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 5271619 — net $166.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment	$139.00	Rent overpayment
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$166.00
Bond	$437.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$166.00

Claims and awards for application 5271619 — net $166.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent overpayment

Amount: $139.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Rent overpayment

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $166.00

Bond

Tenant $437.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $166.00

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — for lack of evidence proving its claim and because the tenants have provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost as the premise was at standard th…
Stain Removal Costs — Reimbursement of filing fee

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Glen Lightbody must pay [The tenants] $166.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $437.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant name suppressed] spoke on behalf of the tenants as [Tenant name suppressed] is in the United Kingdom and [Tenant name suppressed] had an urgent work commitment that did not allow him to attend. [Tenant name suppressed] also attended the hearing. A female flatmate also attended the hearing, but she was never named on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Why has the landlord continued to hold the rent overpayment?

The tenancy ended on 17 March 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the tenants overpaid rent by $139.00 that it has held to cover the cost of the cleaning of the carpet, in addition to holding back $437.00 from the bond to also cover this cost.
The landlord must immediately pay this overpayment of rent back to the tenants.

Did the tenants 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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.” 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”.
The landlord says the tenants did not leave the carpet reasonably clean and tidy, that it was generally dirty throughout the house from all the tenants that had come and gone through the premise since 2021, and that there were stains on the carpet in the master bedroom, one other bedroom, the lounge and dining room that required additional stain removal treatment.
The tenants confirmed they had the carpet cleaned at the end of their tenancy and that they left the carpet in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. They also state they are not responsible for the carpet stains and provided photographic evidence that the bedroom stains existed prior to the start of their tenancy and that there was no evidence of the lounge and dining stains in the exit inspection.
The tenants also confirmed their tenancy commenced on 15 March 2023 and not in 2021. Therefore, they correctly stated that they can only be held liable for the premise not being left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy, or in a similar condition to when their tenancy commenced.
The property managers evidence suggests that the carpet had not been cleaned prior to the tenancy commencing, despite the number of tenants and flatmates that the property managers say had come and gone out of the premise.
The landlord’s claims are based on the fact that [Tenant name suppressed] was a flatmate from 2021 and that he should be liable for stains and dirty carpet from 2021 as he was part of the group that caused these stains. Additionally, the landlord’s claims are based on the carpet in the entire premise requiring a good clean after four years of the premise housing multiple tenants and flatmates.
The law is clear, the tenants are liable for the cost of carpet cleaning if the premise was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy or in a similar condition to how they received the premise at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants provided photographic evidence of the day they had finished cleaning after they had moved all their belongings out of the premise. The photographs shows the premise was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state, or at least similar to the condition the carpet was in at the start of their tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claim and because the tenants have provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost as the premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”.

Are 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the tenants stained the carpets in the master bedroom, one other bedroom, the lounge and dining room during the tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants provided photographic evidence of the master bedroom and other bedroom carpet at the start of their tenancy. The stains in these photographs are identical to those in the exit inspection photograph.
The tenants have also produced a copy of the exit inspection that makes no mention of stains in the lounge and dining room carpet. These stains were identified three weeks after the tenancy had ended by a second property manager, and not by the property manager that had conducted the exit inspection. The second property manager states she found these additional stains when she went to the premise to recheck the bedroom stains.
The property manager says the lounge and dining room caret was new in 2021 and therefore these tenants are liable for these stains. The tenancy did not commence until 15 March 2023, two years after the new carpet was laid.
The landlord had no photographs of the lounge and dining room carpets at the start of the tenancy that proves they were pristine and not stained at that time. The landlord has failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove its claims on the balance of probabilities. Its claim for stain removal costs is dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Glen Lightbody has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claim its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name 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.
The tenants have wholly succeeded in their proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.
The landlord has also applied for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claim. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct in this matter, in that it has tried to force the tenants to pay for damage it knew had occurred during prior tenancies and for cleaning costs to bring the carpet to a better condition than the tenants had received the property in.
The landlords engaged seasoned property managers that should have reasonably known these tenants could not be held liable for the cleaning and stain removal costs sought and it failed to produce any persuasive evidence whatsoever to support its claims.
It produced evidence that showed the tenants were prepared to make a settlement offer in good faith instead of putting all parties through a hearing, despite stating clearly they knew they were not liable for these costs. The landlord refused to settle, instead continuing with the Tribunal hearing, and then it sought to rely on these settlement discussions as evidence of the tenants having accepted liability for some of the cleaning costs.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271619 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271619 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Why has the landlord continued to hold the rent overpayment?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Why has the landlord continued to hold the rent overpayment?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions