What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279247 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 5279247?

Case, And The Tribunal Orders Suppre…: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279247?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279247?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12250819-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279247 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 5279247?

Case, And The Tribunal Orders Suppre…: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279247?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279247?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12250819-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Lark Street, Taihape, Taihape 4720 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279247 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5279247. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The tenant is to pay the lan	$220.00		case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The tenant is to pay the lan
Bond		$570.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenant is to pay the landlord $220.00 from the bond for cleaning and rubbish disposal.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $570.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: a. The landlord: $220.00 b. The tenant: $350.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has claimed that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenant denies the landlord’s claim and has applied for the refund of the bond. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding the landlord’s claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. The landlord’s evidence
The landlord provided or gave the following evidence in support of her claim: a. “Inspection Findings” from her property manager’s final inspection report dated 18 March 2025 (“the report”). b. Enlarged photographs from the report. c. An invoice from Latin Clean for $270.00. d. Details of additional work completed by her including the disposal of rubbish and cleaning of curtains.
In summary, the landlord claimed that in order to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, the tenant was required to clean the skirting boards, power and light switches, light bulbs and shades, the shower head and taps; and clear the walls of any cobwebs and clean the curtains, including the shower curtain; and remove all rubbish. The tenant’s evidence
The tenant claimed that the property was left reasonably clean and tidy and gave the following evidence: a. She had left the property in the same condition it was in at the start of the tenancy. b. She had inadvertently left three packing boxes under the house. c. She had put out the rubbish bag for collection but that there was an issue with the contractor and it was not collected on the scheduled day. d. She had cleaned the kitchen and bathroom and vacuumed all the property. e. She employed a cleaner who provided a brief email advising that she had assisted in moving the tenant and “hoovering” and concluding that “The house was left in a clean and tidy condition.” Discussion and decision
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. A tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner and tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. e. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. f. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
Neither party provided any photographic evidence of the state of the property at the start of the tenancy. The landlord signed tenancy agreement did not include any acknowledgement of the state of cleanliness of the property at the start of the tenancy. On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not therefore possible to determine the state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has persuaded it on the balance of probabilities that a small amount of rubbish needed to be removed, there was a small amount of vacuuming required, specifically around the hearth area, and some surfaces required further cleaning. The Tribunal does not accept that the tenant was required to clean the walls or curtains. The landlord’s paid invoice indicates that the house cleaning, excluding the walls, cost $170.00. In addition, the landlord is entitled to compensation for disposing of the small amount of rubbish and $50.00 is appropriate compensation. The landlord is therefore awarded a total of $220.00 compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord also claimed a sum for the preparation and submission of her application. Section 102(2) RTA details the situations in which the Tribunal can award costs and none of them are applicable to these applications.
Both parties have requested name suppression. Given the small sum involved in this claim and the limited public interest in such disputes, it is appropriate that the Tribunal exercise its discretion and order suppression of the parties’ names as requested.
While the landlord has been partially successful in her claim, the tenant has been equally successful in defending the larger part of the landlord’s claim for the whole bond. It is therefore appropriate that each party meet their cost of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5279247. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The tenant is to pay the lan	$220.00		case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details. 2. The tenant is to pay the lan
Bond		$570.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenant is to pay the landlord $220.00 from the bond for cleaning and rubbish disposal.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $570.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: a. The landlord: $220.00 b. The tenant: $350.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has claimed that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenant denies the landlord’s claim and has applied for the refund of the bond. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the landlord’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding the landlord’s claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence. The landlord’s evidence
The landlord provided or gave the following evidence in support of her claim: a. “Inspection Findings” from her property manager’s final inspection report dated 18 March 2025 (“the report”). b. Enlarged photographs from the report. c. An invoice from Latin Clean for $270.00. d. Details of additional work completed by her including the disposal of rubbish and cleaning of curtains.
In summary, the landlord claimed that in order to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, the tenant was required to clean the skirting boards, power and light switches, light bulbs and shades, the shower head and taps; and clear the walls of any cobwebs and clean the curtains, including the shower curtain; and remove all rubbish. The tenant’s evidence
The tenant claimed that the property was left reasonably clean and tidy and gave the following evidence: a. She had left the property in the same condition it was in at the start of the tenancy. b. She had inadvertently left three packing boxes under the house. c. She had put out the rubbish bag for collection but that there was an issue with the contractor and it was not collected on the scheduled day. d. She had cleaned the kitchen and bathroom and vacuumed all the property. e. She employed a cleaner who provided a brief email advising that she had assisted in moving the tenant and “hoovering” and concluding that “The house was left in a clean and tidy condition.” Discussion and decision
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. A tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner and tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. e. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. f. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
Neither party provided any photographic evidence of the state of the property at the start of the tenancy. The landlord signed tenancy agreement did not include any acknowledgement of the state of cleanliness of the property at the start of the tenancy. On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not therefore possible to determine the state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has persuaded it on the balance of probabilities that a small amount of rubbish needed to be removed, there was a small amount of vacuuming required, specifically around the hearth area, and some surfaces required further cleaning. The Tribunal does not accept that the tenant was required to clean the walls or curtains. The landlord’s paid invoice indicates that the house cleaning, excluding the walls, cost $170.00. In addition, the landlord is entitled to compensation for disposing of the small amount of rubbish and $50.00 is appropriate compensation. The landlord is therefore awarded a total of $220.00 compensation for cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord also claimed a sum for the preparation and submission of her application. Section 102(2) RTA details the situations in which the Tribunal can award costs and none of them are applicable to these applications.
Both parties have requested name suppression. Given the small sum involved in this claim and the limited public interest in such disputes, it is appropriate that the Tribunal exercise its discretion and order suppression of the parties’ names as requested.
While the landlord has been partially successful in her claim, the tenant has been equally successful in defending the larger part of the landlord’s claim for the whole bond. It is therefore appropriate that each party meet their cost of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279247 — Cleanliness at 4 Lark Street, Taihape, Taihape 4720

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279247 — Cleanliness at 4 Lark Street, Taihape, Taihape 4720

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions