What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280321 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5280321?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $354.20 awarded to landlord; Remove Tenants' Items & Rubbish: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Non-Working Lights: $86.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280321?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12590003-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280321 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5280321?

Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $354.20 awarded to landlord; Remove Tenants' Items & Rubbish: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Non-Working Lights: $86.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280321?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12590003-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5280321 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280321. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$575.00		Cleaning
Remove tenants' items & rubbish	$460.00		Remove tenants' items & rubbish
Replace non-working lights	$86.25		Replace non-working lights
Repair dent in bathroom door & paint	$354.20		Repair dent in bathroom door & paint
Bond		$2,520.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited - As Agent For Xiangjun Zhang $1,475.45 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rempstone Property Management Limited - As Agent For Xiangjun Zhang: $1,475.45 [The tenant/s]: $1,044.55

Reasons

This matter concerns a landlord’s application to the Tribunal for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims a total of $3,217.70, made up of costs for general cleaning, rubbish removal, repairs to locks, lighting, and a shed wall, as well as a dented bathroom door.
The tenants dispute the majority of the claims, asserting that the property was handed over to them in a poor condition at the start of the tenancy, with mould, dampness, and other pre-existing damage and items left behind. They also argue that some of the work claimed relates to fair wear and tear, or to items that were not theirs.
The Tribunal must determine whether the landlord has proven the claims on the balance of probabilities and to what extent compensation should be awarded.
The onus is on the landlord to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations?

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 (“RTA”). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims the property was left “in an unacceptable state” at the end of the tenancy. The landlord relies on an exit inspection report and an invoice dated 2 June 2025. The invoice records: • General cleaning (walls, ceilings, fixtures, carpet): $1,100.00 • Removal of fridge, tenant items and rubbish: $830.00 • Replacement of rear door lock: $110.00 • Replacement of non-working lights: $150.00 • Repair of bathroom door dent: $308.00 • Repair of shed wall damage: $300.00 • GST $419.70 – total $3,217.70.
The landlord asserts the house required professional cleaning throughout and removal of numerous tenant items. The landlord refers to mould on curtains, dust, wall marks, dirty fixtures, and rubbish outside and inside the house. The landlord says the tenants failed to meet their obligations to leave the premises clean and tidy.
The tenants argue that the property was in poor condition at the start of the tenancy. They rely on photographs taken on 9 April 2024 and on the ingoing inspection report, which recorded mould stains, dust on window frames, dirty curtains, chipped walls, overgrown lawns, and rubbish bins full. They state that previous tenants’ furniture was left in the garage and shed and some of that rubbish remained throughout the tenancy.
The tenants also state they suffered persistent mould and dampness issues during the tenancy. They say an inspector told them the windows did not comply with legal minimum waterproofing standards. Two out of three tenants reportedly suffered chest infections. They say they received little meaningful support from the landlord despite raising complaints.
The tenants accept responsibility for leaving their fridge behind and for a dent in the bathroom door, but they dispute liability for the remainder of the claim, including shed wall damage and rubbish that pre-existed. They also contend the broken lock was due to wear and tear.
The ingoing inspection report dated 9 April 2024 confirms the tenants’ position that the house was not in pristine condition. It noted mould stains in the bathroom, mould on sunroom curtains, dust accumulation, dirt marks on walls, damaged carpets, and overgrown lawns. The landlord arranged for some remedial works to occur after commencement, but the evidence indicates the house was not handed over in a reasonable state. This is relevant because a tenant’s obligation is to return the property in a reasonably clean condition, less fair wear and tear, not to a higher standard.
There is credible evidence that tenants experienced significant mould and dampness issues during the tenancy. While the landlord relied on a Healthy Homes compliance certificate from 2021–2022, this pre-dated the tenancy by more than two years. The tenants’ photographs and testimony support their position that the property suffered water ingress, draughts, and persistent mould.
Mould typically arises from moisture, poor insulation, inadequate drainage, or ventilation. The Healthy Homes Standards impose duties on landlords to provide properties free of moisture ingress, with efficient drainage and proper ventilation. Tenants have a complementary duty to ventilate and keep the house reasonably clean and dry, but they are not responsible for structural issues or inadequate property condition.
This evidence does not absolve the tenants of their end-of-tenancy obligations, but it is relevant in assessing the weight and scope of the landlord’s claims and standard of cleanliness that can reasonably be expected.
The Tribunal’s findings on each claim: a. General Cleaning ($1,100) The legal test is whether the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state, not a “professionally cleaned” standard. As established in numerous Tribunal decisions, the legal test is what an objective, reasonable bystander would consider clean and tidy. This standard recognises that surfaces in older properties may be more difficult to clean and that some cleaning between tenancies is an ordinary cost of doing business. The evidence shows the premises was already in a below-average condition at the start, with mould, dust, and damage noted in the ingoing inspection. While the landlord’s photographs and report show some cleaning was required, the property’s condition and age mean that part of the cleaning relates to ordinary turnover and pre-existing wear. It is reasonable that some cost falls to the landlord as part of re-tenanting. The Tribunal finds that some cleaning cost is justified but not the full amount claimed. Amount awarded: $500.00 plus GST b. Rubbish Removal and Items ($830) The tenants accept leaving a fridge and some items. They credibly argue that many items in the garage and shed were pre-existing. The landlord acknowledges ownership of some of those items, including a dryer and paint tins. The invoice is not itemised and simply refers to “fridge, tenant items, tenant’s garbage.” On the evidence, some cost to the landlord is justified, but the full amount claimed is not established. Amount awarded: $400.00 plus GST c. Rear Door Lock ($110) The tenants state the rear door lock was faulty from day one and failed due to long-term wear. The landlord has not produced evidence to rebut this or to show careless or intentional damage. This is most consistent with fair wear and tear, for which the tenants are not liable. Claim declined. d. Non-Working Lights ($150) The Tribunal notes that the exit inspection report recorded that some lights were not functioning. The tenants deny liability, but they had a duty under section 40(1)(ca) to replace standard bulbs. While not all lights may have failed due to tenant breach, the landlord has produced sufficient evidence to support a partial claim. Accordingly, half of the claim is allowed. Amount awarded: $75.00 plus GST e. Bathroom Door Dent ($308) The tenants accept responsibility for the dent in the bathroom door. The amount claimed is supported by an invoice and is reasonable. Amount awarded: $308.00 plus GST f. Shed Wall Damage ($300) The tenants deny responsibility and say the shed was in disrepair throughout. Given the conflicting views, The Tribunal is not satisfied that this claim was adequately proven. Claim declined.
This case highlights that the standard of cleanliness required of tenants is one of reasonableness, not perfection or commercial cleaning. A landlord may choose to bring a property to a higher standard for their own commercial reasons, but that cost is not recoverable from the tenant.
It also reinforces the importance of robust evidence to support compensation claims. Landlords should ensure that inspection reports, photographs, and invoices clearly link claimed costs to tenant breach rather than general maintenance or pre-existing issues.
The Tribunal also acknowledges the tenants’ evidence regarding mould and dampness, which supports a finding that the premises had long-standing issues not attributable to tenant behaviour.
As the landlord has not been wholly successful with the claims, I decline ordering the other party to reimburse the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the RTA, the Tribunal may order name suppression if a party has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings. In this case, the tenants have largely succeeded in defending the claim. Accordingly, suppression of the tenants’ identifying details is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5280321. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$575.00		Cleaning
Remove tenants' items & rubbish	$460.00		Remove tenants' items & rubbish
Replace non-working lights	$86.25		Replace non-working lights
Repair dent in bathroom door & paint	$354.20		Repair dent in bathroom door & paint
Bond		$2,520.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited - As Agent For Xiangjun Zhang $1,475.45 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rempstone Property Management Limited - As Agent For Xiangjun Zhang: $1,475.45 [The tenant/s]: $1,044.55

Reasons

This matter concerns a landlord’s application to the Tribunal for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims a total of $3,217.70, made up of costs for general cleaning, rubbish removal, repairs to locks, lighting, and a shed wall, as well as a dented bathroom door.
The tenants dispute the majority of the claims, asserting that the property was handed over to them in a poor condition at the start of the tenancy, with mould, dampness, and other pre-existing damage and items left behind. They also argue that some of the work claimed relates to fair wear and tear, or to items that were not theirs.
The Tribunal must determine whether the landlord has proven the claims on the balance of probabilities and to what extent compensation should be awarded.
The onus is on the landlord to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations?

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 (“RTA”). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claims the property was left “in an unacceptable state” at the end of the tenancy. The landlord relies on an exit inspection report and an invoice dated 2 June 2025. The invoice records: • General cleaning (walls, ceilings, fixtures, carpet): $1,100.00 • Removal of fridge, tenant items and rubbish: $830.00 • Replacement of rear door lock: $110.00 • Replacement of non-working lights: $150.00 • Repair of bathroom door dent: $308.00 • Repair of shed wall damage: $300.00 • GST $419.70 – total $3,217.70.
The landlord asserts the house required professional cleaning throughout and removal of numerous tenant items. The landlord refers to mould on curtains, dust, wall marks, dirty fixtures, and rubbish outside and inside the house. The landlord says the tenants failed to meet their obligations to leave the premises clean and tidy.
The tenants argue that the property was in poor condition at the start of the tenancy. They rely on photographs taken on 9 April 2024 and on the ingoing inspection report, which recorded mould stains, dust on window frames, dirty curtains, chipped walls, overgrown lawns, and rubbish bins full. They state that previous tenants’ furniture was left in the garage and shed and some of that rubbish remained throughout the tenancy.
The tenants also state they suffered persistent mould and dampness issues during the tenancy. They say an inspector told them the windows did not comply with legal minimum waterproofing standards. Two out of three tenants reportedly suffered chest infections. They say they received little meaningful support from the landlord despite raising complaints.
The tenants accept responsibility for leaving their fridge behind and for a dent in the bathroom door, but they dispute liability for the remainder of the claim, including shed wall damage and rubbish that pre-existed. They also contend the broken lock was due to wear and tear.
The ingoing inspection report dated 9 April 2024 confirms the tenants’ position that the house was not in pristine condition. It noted mould stains in the bathroom, mould on sunroom curtains, dust accumulation, dirt marks on walls, damaged carpets, and overgrown lawns. The landlord arranged for some remedial works to occur after commencement, but the evidence indicates the house was not handed over in a reasonable state. This is relevant because a tenant’s obligation is to return the property in a reasonably clean condition, less fair wear and tear, not to a higher standard.
There is credible evidence that tenants experienced significant mould and dampness issues during the tenancy. While the landlord relied on a Healthy Homes compliance certificate from 2021–2022, this pre-dated the tenancy by more than two years. The tenants’ photographs and testimony support their position that the property suffered water ingress, draughts, and persistent mould.
Mould typically arises from moisture, poor insulation, inadequate drainage, or ventilation. The Healthy Homes Standards impose duties on landlords to provide properties free of moisture ingress, with efficient drainage and proper ventilation. Tenants have a complementary duty to ventilate and keep the house reasonably clean and dry, but they are not responsible for structural issues or inadequate property condition.
This evidence does not absolve the tenants of their end-of-tenancy obligations, but it is relevant in assessing the weight and scope of the landlord’s claims and standard of cleanliness that can reasonably be expected.
The Tribunal’s findings on each claim: a. General Cleaning ($1,100) The legal test is whether the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state, not a “professionally cleaned” standard. As established in numerous Tribunal decisions, the legal test is what an objective, reasonable bystander would consider clean and tidy. This standard recognises that surfaces in older properties may be more difficult to clean and that some cleaning between tenancies is an ordinary cost of doing business. The evidence shows the premises was already in a below-average condition at the start, with mould, dust, and damage noted in the ingoing inspection. While the landlord’s photographs and report show some cleaning was required, the property’s condition and age mean that part of the cleaning relates to ordinary turnover and pre-existing wear. It is reasonable that some cost falls to the landlord as part of re-tenanting. The Tribunal finds that some cleaning cost is justified but not the full amount claimed. Amount awarded: $500.00 plus GST b. Rubbish Removal and Items ($830) The tenants accept leaving a fridge and some items. They credibly argue that many items in the garage and shed were pre-existing. The landlord acknowledges ownership of some of those items, including a dryer and paint tins. The invoice is not itemised and simply refers to “fridge, tenant items, tenant’s garbage.” On the evidence, some cost to the landlord is justified, but the full amount claimed is not established. Amount awarded: $400.00 plus GST c. Rear Door Lock ($110) The tenants state the rear door lock was faulty from day one and failed due to long-term wear. The landlord has not produced evidence to rebut this or to show careless or intentional damage. This is most consistent with fair wear and tear, for which the tenants are not liable. Claim declined. d. Non-Working Lights ($150) The Tribunal notes that the exit inspection report recorded that some lights were not functioning. The tenants deny liability, but they had a duty under section 40(1)(ca) to replace standard bulbs. While not all lights may have failed due to tenant breach, the landlord has produced sufficient evidence to support a partial claim. Accordingly, half of the claim is allowed. Amount awarded: $75.00 plus GST e. Bathroom Door Dent ($308) The tenants accept responsibility for the dent in the bathroom door. The amount claimed is supported by an invoice and is reasonable. Amount awarded: $308.00 plus GST f. Shed Wall Damage ($300) The tenants deny responsibility and say the shed was in disrepair throughout. Given the conflicting views, The Tribunal is not satisfied that this claim was adequately proven. Claim declined.
This case highlights that the standard of cleanliness required of tenants is one of reasonableness, not perfection or commercial cleaning. A landlord may choose to bring a property to a higher standard for their own commercial reasons, but that cost is not recoverable from the tenant.
It also reinforces the importance of robust evidence to support compensation claims. Landlords should ensure that inspection reports, photographs, and invoices clearly link claimed costs to tenant breach rather than general maintenance or pre-existing issues.
The Tribunal also acknowledges the tenants’ evidence regarding mould and dampness, which supports a finding that the premises had long-standing issues not attributable to tenant behaviour.
As the landlord has not been wholly successful with the claims, I decline ordering the other party to reimburse the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the RTA, the Tribunal may order name suppression if a party has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings. In this case, the tenants have largely succeeded in defending the claim. Accordingly, suppression of the tenants’ identifying details is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280321 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280321 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions