What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5289151?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s claims seeking compensation for carpet cleaning and

How much money was awarded in case 5289151?

Cleaning: $181.13 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $58.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289151?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12259161-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5289151?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s claims seeking compensation for carpet cleaning and

How much money was awarded in case 5289151?

Cleaning: $181.13 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $58.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289151?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12259161-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 60 Ely Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5289151 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289151. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Light bulbs (by consent	$58.65	Light bulbs (by consent
Cleaning	$181.13	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

The landlord’s claims seeking compensation for carpet cleaning and compensation for damage to curtain linings are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay $266.78 of the bond (5331183-008) to Bayleys Property Management immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay $1,333.22 of the bond (5331183-008) to Laurel Winter and Eduardo Vazquez immediately, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Introduction

Laurel Winter and Eduardo Vazquez (the tenants) lived in Flat 3, 60 Ely Street, Christchurch Central (the premises) for just over six years. The tenancy was managed by Bayleys Property Management (the landlord).

The tenancy ended on 7 April 2025. Following an exit inspection conducted on 8 April 2025, the landlord says the tenant failed to leave the premises reasonably clean and caused damage to the curtain lining requiring replacement. The landlord also says the carpet was also dirty and required professional steam cleaning, and that the tenant failed to replace blown/missing lightbulbs.

At the hearing, the tenants accepted liability for the blown/missing lightbulbs. Therefore, by consent, I make the order as sought.

The tenants deny liability for the remaining claims made by the landlord.

The remaining issues for me to determine are: a. Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean? b. Did the tenant cause damage to the curtain lining? If so, is the tenant liable for the cost of replacing the curtain lining? c. Did the tenant fail to leave the carpets reasonably clean? Tribunal’s approach to the issues

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.

I apply this approach for each issue, discussed separately below.

Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The landlord says the furnished two-bedroom apartment was not left reasonably clean and referred to photos taken during the exit inspection conducted on 8 April 2025. Photos show dust and grime on horizontal blinds in the kitchen, and grime in the bathroom also.

The landlord says it took a professional cleaner 7 hours to clean the apartment. The total cost was $362.50 but the landlord seeks reimbursement of half that cost, in recognition that a tenant is not required to bring the premises up to a professional level of cleanliness, only to that which would be considered “reasonably clean.”

The tenant pointed to the condition the premises were at the start of the tenancy in 2019, and submits that because the premises were not clean at the start of the tenancy, the tenants should not be required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean condition at the end. However, that is not accurate.

Pursuant to section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act, the tenant has an obligation to leave the premises in a “reasonably clean” condition. That obligation is not negated by, or diminished by, evidence relating to how the premises were presented at the start of the tenancy. A tenant has remedies available to them if they find premises are not clean at the start of the tenancy. 1 The tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy exist independent of the landlord’s obligations at the start of the tenancy (and throughout).

I am satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. Photos show surfaces were not clean in the kitchen and bathroom, and items like the kitchen blinds had built up grime on them. I am also satisfied the cost claimed is appropriate, being half the cost of a professional clean.

I find the landlord’s claim proved and make an order for reimbursement for half the actual cleaning cost. 1 Such as issuing the landlord with a 14-day notice to remedy requiring that the landlord comply with their obligations under s45(1)(a) and s56(1)(b)(i) of the Act. Did the tenant cause damage to the curtain lining? If so, is the tenant liable for the cost of replacing the curtain lining?

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 of the Act.

The landlord says mould and mildew on the curtain lining in the lounge was caused by the tenant allowing the curtain to touch condensation build up on the sliding glass door. The landlord says the entry report conducted on 17 January 2019 records the lounge curtain as being in “good” condition, but photos taken on 8 April 2025 show it had mould build up by the end of the tenancy.

The landlord says they are unsure how old the curtains were, but concede they were not brand new when the tenancy commenced in January 2019. The landlord provided evidence that a replacement curtain liner cost $133 and an invoice for the cost of installation was $70. The landlord seeks $200 in compensation.

The tenant does not dispute the condition of the curtains at the end of the tenancy but say it was as a result of normal use of the curtains in an apartment that had condensation issues. The tenants say they kept the curtains closed at night – for warmth and privacy – and that there was no way to stop them coming into contact with condensation on the glass door. They say they used the heat pump and a dehumidifier but condensation was an issue in the apartment, which was built on an unknown date before 2011, possibly between 2004 and 2008.

I am satisfied there was damage to the curtains which was caused during the tenancy, but I am not satisfied the landlord has proved it was more than fair wear and tear. The use described by the tenant is entirely normal and to be expected. Given the condensation issues referred to, I consider after six years of regular use, the curtain lining was likely to show signs of mould and/or mildew. I also note that, by the end of the tenancy, the curtains were approximately 15 years old (at least). Given that, they were therefore beyond their expected life expectancy. 2

The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the curtain lining is dismissed. 2 Inland Revenue 265, General depreciation rates, July 2025: estimates curtains installed in a residential rental property have an estimated useful life of 8 years. See p.36.

Did the tenant fail to leave the carpets reasonably clean?

As stated above, at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 3 That applies to the carpet in the premises also.

The landlord says the carpet had a build up of dirt that was not easily photographed. The property manager said when she attended on 8 April 2025 for the exit inspection there was a noticeable odour coming from the carpets.

The landlord produced an invoice from a professional carpet cleaner for $165 to steam clean and deodorize the carpet. The landlord seeks reimbursement of half that amount, being $82.50, in recognition that the tenant is not liable for a professional level of cleanliness, only “reasonably clean.”

The tenant says they vacuumed the carpet and believed they left it reasonably clean. They say in 2021 there was a leak from the bathroom which created some staining on the carpet in the hallway. In response, the landlord said the steaming and deodorizing completed in April 2025 did not relate to the damage caused by the bathroom leak in 2021.

The landlord said they believed the carpet was the original carpet from when the apartment was built (pre-2011). The entry inspection recorded some fading in the carpet in the hallway and some stains in the carpet in the lounge. I also note carpet in a residential rental property has an estimated useful life of 8 years. 4 Given all these factors, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenants failed to leave it in reasonably clean condition. Some wear, including the build up of deeper dirt in the likes of carpet, is to be expected over a six- year tenancy and in carpet that is at least 15 years old.

I dismiss the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. N Small 3 Pursuant to s40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. 4 Inland Revenue 265, General depreciation rates, July 2025, p.36 13 August 2025

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289151. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Light bulbs (by consent	$58.65	Light bulbs (by consent
Cleaning	$181.13	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

The landlord’s claims seeking compensation for carpet cleaning and compensation for damage to curtain linings are dismissed.

Reasons

Introduction

At the hearing, the tenants accepted liability for the blown/missing lightbulbs. Therefore, by consent, I make the order as sought.

The tenants deny liability for the remaining claims made by the landlord.

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.

I apply this approach for each issue, discussed separately below.

Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

Did the tenant fail to leave the carpets reasonably clean?

As stated above, at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 3 That applies to the carpet in the premises also.

I dismiss the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289151 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 3, 60 Ely Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289151 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 3, 60 Ely Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the tenant fail to leave the carpets reasonably clean?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant fail to leave the premises reasonably clean?

Did the tenant fail to leave the carpets reasonably clean?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions