What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5289067 about?

The tribunal order states: Patience Albrett (Cobb) and Issac Albrett to pay Kent Paul Amey and Helena

How much money was awarded in case 5289067?

Cleaning: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Curtain Rail: $15.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Tiles: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Door Stoppers: $66.28 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $69.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289067?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12544130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5289067 about?

The tribunal order states: Patience Albrett (Cobb) and Issac Albrett to pay Kent Paul Amey and Helena

How much money was awarded in case 5289067?

Cleaning: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Curtain Rail: $15.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Tiles: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Door Stoppers: $66.28 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $69.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289067?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12544130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Kereru Court, Marton, Marton 4710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5289067 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289067 — net $1,765.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace door stoppers	$66.28	Replace door stoppers
Repairs: Painting	$250.00	d liability for that damage. In the circumstances, the tenant is ordered to pay $250.00 to the landlord.
Curtain rail	$15.50	Curtain rail
Toilet seat	$69.00	tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $69.00.
Curtain cleaning	$40.00	Curtain cleaning
Cleaning	$360.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$40.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Tiles	$460.00	tenant has not disproved liability for the damage the tenant is ordered to pay $460.00. _______________________________________________________________________…
Carpet Cleaning	$437.00	een left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant is ordered to pay $437.00 for carpet cleaning.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,765.78
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,765.78

Patience Albrett (Cobb) and Issac Albrett to pay Kent Paul Amey and Helena Amey $1,765.78 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (6509573-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Kent Paul Amey and Helena Amey: $1,765.78 Patience Albrett (Cobb) and Issac Albrett: $874.22

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 9 October 2025.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for release of the bond. The burden of proof

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Consent

During the course of the hearing the parties agreed on some areas where this could be made by consent. Orders are made for the following claims; The tenant is to pay the landlord; • Door stoppers$66.28 • Curtain rail$15.50 • Curtain cleaning$40.00 • Lawns$40.00

Did the tenant 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.

The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).

The premises were new when the tenant first moved in. The landlord conducted the cleaning themselves. They carried out cleaning over 15 hours and applied for compensation for that work at $40 per hour. The Tribunal will generally consider landlord labour claims at $30.00 per hour. The landlord said that the walls and ceiling needed cleaning. Tiles and grout were not clean. The landlord discovered corn kernels scattered around the premises.

The tenant said that she had arranged for a cleaner to carry out cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The tenant provided a copy of the contract entered into with the cleaner, but did not provide a copy of the cleaners invoice. At the final inspection, the tenant had agreed that the cleaning carried out by her cleaner was not to a good standard. However, the tenant recanted on that statement and said that she thought that the cleaner had done a good job.

I consider that it was more likely than not that further cleaning was required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Having considered the evidence, I consider that a further 12 hours would have been required at $30.00 per hour ($360.00).

The landlord seeks compensation of $437.00 for carpet cleaning. The landlord provided an invoice from the contractor. The narration to the invoice is of significance. The narration provides “carpet cleaning-treat stains. The carpet was heavily soiled and severely stained. A heavy duty clean and stain treatment was required to bring back to a reasonable level of hygiene.”

The landlord said that stains on the carpet had been noted at previous inspections and that the carpet cleaning required to bring the carpet back to a reasonable level of cleanliness.

The tenant accepted that there had been gum left on the carpet in one bedroom. As a result ,the tenant used a rug doctor to clean the carpets. The tenant said that they thought that the carpets had been left reasonably clean, with the exception possibly of the fourth bedroom. Having reviewed the evidence, and in particular that of the cleaning contractor, I am satisfied that the carpets had not been left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant is ordered to pay $437.00 for carpet cleaning.

Is 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 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. The landlord is insured. The excess on the landlords policy of insurance is $500.00 on each and every claim.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:

The landlord claims that there were holes in the walls at the premises. The landlord provided an invoice for repairs of $319.59 and photos of the various dents and scrapes. The damage included a hole where an external doorbell had been removed at the end of the tenancy. The tenant had in some areas attempted to carry out repairs themselves. The landlord indicated that the workmanship in those areas was not of a professional standard and that the repairs had to be re done by their contractor. Photos of the damaged areas were provided by the landlord.

The tenant suggested that the damage was fair wear and tear. The tenant had accepted that some work would have been required in the fourth bedroom where LED lights had been removed. The tenant said that some of the damage was caused by paint cracking as a result of what had been a new house “settling.” Paint had dried in corners and then cracked.

Having reviewed the photos, I accept the tenants proposition that some of the paint damage may have been as a result of the house “settling.” Other than that exception, I consider that the evidence provided by the landlord shows that the balance of the damage was not as a result of fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for that damage. In the circumstances, the tenant is ordered to pay $250.00 to the landlord.

The plastic hinge on the toilet seat is broken. The landlord provided an invoice for $69.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $69.00.

The landlord seeks compensation for two broken tiles. The landlord provided an invoice for $460.00 for repairs and photographs of the damage in support of their application. The landlord said that they hadn't noticed the damage until after the final inspection. It appeared that the tenants had attempted to complete a repair themselves. The tiling contractor indicated that the job was not of a professional standard and resulted in more time being taken to compete the repair. The tiles were supplied by the landlord at no cost.

The tenant said that they had attempted to repair one tile which had been chipped. The landlord had indicated that that one tile would need to be replaced. The tenant did not know how a second tile also had to be replaced.

In this matter, I prefer the evidence of the contractor that two tiles required replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage the tenant is ordered to pay $460.00.

As Kent Paul Amey, Helena Amey has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289067 — net $1,765.78 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace door stoppers	$66.28	Replace door stoppers
Repairs: Painting	$250.00	d liability for that damage. In the circumstances, the tenant is ordered to pay $250.00 to the landlord.
Curtain rail	$15.50	Curtain rail
Toilet seat	$69.00	tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is ordered to pay $69.00.
Curtain cleaning	$40.00	Curtain cleaning
Cleaning	$360.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$40.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Tiles	$460.00	tenant has not disproved liability for the damage the tenant is ordered to pay $460.00. _______________________________________________________________________…
Carpet Cleaning	$437.00	een left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant is ordered to pay $437.00 for carpet cleaning.
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,765.78
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,765.78

Patience Albrett (Cobb) and Issac Albrett to pay Kent Paul Amey and Helena Amey $1,765.78 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (6509573-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Kent Paul Amey and Helena Amey: $1,765.78 Patience Albrett (Cobb) and Issac Albrett: $874.22

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 9 October 2025.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for release of the bond. The burden of proof

Did the tenant 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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord said that stains on the carpet had been noted at previous inspections and that the carpet cleaning required to bring the carpet back to a reasonable level of cleanliness.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy:

As Kent Paul Amey, Helena Amey has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289067 — Cleanliness at 2 Kereru Court, Marton, Marton 4710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289067 — Cleanliness at 2 Kereru Court, Marton, Marton 4710

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions