What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5290959 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5290959?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: tenant goods disposed…: $30.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5290959?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12485899-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5290959 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5290959?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: tenant goods disposed…: $30.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5290959?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5290959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12485899-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5290959 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5290959 — net $220.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning contribution	$250.00		Cleaning contribution
Compensation: tenant goods disposed of		$30.00	tenant goods disposed of
Total award	$250.00	$30.00
Net award	$220.00
Bond	$700.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$220.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $220.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $220.00 [The tenant/s]: $480.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing (the landlord in person and one of the tenants by phone and on behalf of both tenants).
The tenancy was of nearly five years duration.
The parties disagree about claims the landlord has made from the bond and the tenants feel this is unfair given they were inconvenienced by leaks and a failed window latch for most of the duration of the tenancy. The tenants are also upset the landlord disposed of baking utensils they accidentally left behind at the end of the tenancy and did not give them the chance to collect these.
The tenancy ended on 30 May 2025.
I address the issues below. Maintenance issues during the tenancy
There is no dispute that there was a significant leak during the tenancy. This is one of a block of six flats and one of the two large hot water cylinders that service the block, burst in mid-2022. The upstairs flats needed the most remediation including 16 drying machines.
The landlord agrees that this downstairs unit was affected by water coming through the ceiling. The tenants supplied photos showing water coming into the lounge, one bedroom, hallway, and kitchen. It is a small 2-bedroomed flat so most of the unit was affected.
The tenants say they were not offered assistance with drying out their flat which they did with their own dehumidifier. The landlord says he recalls offering them a drying machine and explained this was covered by insurance so it would have been no problem to arrange.
Neither is there dispute that there were two minor leaks, one in each of 2023 and 2024, which the landlord says were caused by an overflowing bath upstairs. The bath has now been removed. The tenants say these were relatively easy to clean up.
There is no evidence the landlord failed in his duty to attend to the leak issues promptly. It is arguable that the landlord should have arranged for a drying machine in this unit as part of his maintenance obligations after the hot-water cylinder leak, as water had entered most rooms in the unit. A rent rebate (to recognise the inconvenience) and/or contribution towards the tenants’ power would also have been appropriate.
However, the tenants accept they did not ask for a drying machine or for financial compensation at the time. For this reason, I have decided not to award compensation now. It is best to raise concerns at the time they occur because then the other person can deal with it, or if they don’t, an application can be made to the Tribunal when events are fresh in everyone’s memory.
The other maintenance issue raised was that a latch on a bedroom window was broken at the start of the tenancy (recorded on the ingoing inspection report) and the tenants say this was never fixed. They say there was a gap which allowed a draught. The landlord agrees the latch was broken and says the window was seized. He denies there was a gap. He has now riveted the window shut which is probably a reasonable solution as there is another opening window in the room to allow ventilation.
Clearly, maintenance issues should be fixed. The tenants included the issue in an email to the landlord in October 2023. To not attend to this for nearly five years is a maintenance breach by the landlord.
However, I have decided not to award compensation. There was no photo to show me whether there was a gap or not, so it is not proven there was a draught, and I again advise that if something is a concern, it should be raised and pursued at the time. End of tenancy cleaning
Tenants have a legal obligation to leave 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 landlord supplied photographs that show specific areas of the unit were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy (eg rangehood, oven drawer, very dusty skirtings).
However, a long-range photo of the lounge and the tenants’ photos satisfy me that the premises were vacuumed, and the kitchen was mostly reasonably clean (except the few missed areas). Some of the landlord’s photos are of areas I would not usually expect a tenant to clean such as underneath the cutlery tray and oven drawer, and cobwebs outside. The landlord said he was renovating the bathroom so told the tenants not to bother cleaning that.
My decision is to require the tenants to contribute towards the cost of cleaning.
The landlord supplied an invoice for $862.50 for a “full deep clean” to bring the unit up to standard ready to rent out. After the hearing, I noticed that:- a. The invoice is dated 21 August 2025 which is nearly 3 months after the tenancy ended; and b. The landlord first asked the tenants to pay $400.00 towards “deep clean of the house” in an email 1 dated 17 June 2025.
I cannot ask the landlord why the amount has changed or why the invoice is dated so long after the tenancy ended because the hearing has finished. I have decided to award the landlord $250.00 which is about five hours work (at $50.00 per hour) which is what I consider reasonable to clean the areas missed by the tenants. This is about two-thirds of the first amount the landlord asked for ($400.00). Disposal of tenants’ goods
The tenants accidentally left some baking items behind at the property (a cooking tray, 3 silicon baking tins, a grater, reusable plastic cutlery). They say the landlord did not let them know or they would have collected these.
The tenants are correct that if a tenant leaves on the premises goods that are neither foodstuffs nor other perishable goods, the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods. See section 62(2) RTA.
The landlord accepts he did not do this. He said he assumed the tenants did not want the things that had been left behind, so he disposed of them.
This is a breach of section 33 RTA which says that it is an unlawful act for a landlord to take or dispose of a tenant’s goods. A landlord does not breach this section if they first try to contact the tenant and are reasonable about making arrangements to collect the items. 2
The Tribunal can award a fine (exemplary damages) of a maximum of $3,000.00 for breaching section 33; Schedule 1A RTA.
I accept the landlord genuinely thought the baking items were left behind because they were not wanted by the tenants, so I do not award exemplary damages. The items were relatively minor, and he had had conversations with the tenant who was doing the final move-out so assumed she had taken everything that was wanted. However, the landlord was wrong and the tenants’ suffered loss. I have no estimate of value so award $30.00 as compensation towards purchasing replacement items. 1 Supplied by the tenant with her application documents. 2 Section 33 says that nothing in that section applies if a landlord has disposed of goods in accordance with the requirements in sections 62 to 62C RTA. Lounge carpet
The landlord has asked the tenants to contribute 50% of the replacement cost of carpet in the lounge in the unit.
For a damage claim to be successful, 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
If careless damage is proven, the most a tenant can be liable for is the lesser of any insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3) RTA.
My decision is that the landlord has not proven the lounge carpet was stained during this tenancy and the claim must be dismissed. My reasons for this decision are:- a. the ingoing inspection report notes the lounge carpet was already stained from previous tenants but there are no ingoing photos of the existing stains to compare with the photos taken at the end of the tenancy. The stains at the end may be the same as the ones at the start of the tenancy; b. even if there were new stains, the landlord did not take any photos after he tried to remove them from the carpet. This means I cannot assess whether the stains were permanent. They may have been able to be removed with professional cleaning; c. the tenants’ evidence proves all three leak incidents affected the lounge. I agree with the tenants that this would not have helped the condition of the carpet and could have stained it; d. not only was the carpet already stained at the start of the tenancy, but it was eight years old by the end of this tenancy. The Inland Revenue Department estimates a useful life of eight years for carpet in residential rental property. 3 In other words, even if the landlord had proven the carpet was stained during this tenancy, arguably he has not suffered a loss as the carpet was due to be replaced anyway. Filing fees and suppression of names
Both parties are partly successful, so I make no award about filing fees.
I order suppression of both parties’ names for the same reason and because there is no conduct of significant concern by either party. 3 Carpet installed after 1 April 2011 estimated at 8 years. Modular nylon carpet before this date is estimated at 15.5 years and other carpet at 5 years. See General Depreciation Rates in IR265, pg 36.
That said, the landlord needs to take care to comply with all legal requirements. The tenancy agreement was missing compulsory compliance statements which have been required for many years. 4

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5290959 — net $220.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning contribution	$250.00		Cleaning contribution
Compensation: tenant goods disposed of		$30.00	tenant goods disposed of
Total award	$250.00	$30.00
Net award	$220.00
Bond	$700.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$220.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $220.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $220.00 [The tenant/s]: $480.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing (the landlord in person and one of the tenants by phone and on behalf of both tenants).
The tenancy was of nearly five years duration.
The parties disagree about claims the landlord has made from the bond and the tenants feel this is unfair given they were inconvenienced by leaks and a failed window latch for most of the duration of the tenancy. The tenants are also upset the landlord disposed of baking utensils they accidentally left behind at the end of the tenancy and did not give them the chance to collect these.
The tenancy ended on 30 May 2025.
I address the issues below. Maintenance issues during the tenancy
There is no dispute that there was a significant leak during the tenancy. This is one of a block of six flats and one of the two large hot water cylinders that service the block, burst in mid-2022. The upstairs flats needed the most remediation including 16 drying machines.
The landlord agrees that this downstairs unit was affected by water coming through the ceiling. The tenants supplied photos showing water coming into the lounge, one bedroom, hallway, and kitchen. It is a small 2-bedroomed flat so most of the unit was affected.
The tenants say they were not offered assistance with drying out their flat which they did with their own dehumidifier. The landlord says he recalls offering them a drying machine and explained this was covered by insurance so it would have been no problem to arrange.
Neither is there dispute that there were two minor leaks, one in each of 2023 and 2024, which the landlord says were caused by an overflowing bath upstairs. The bath has now been removed. The tenants say these were relatively easy to clean up.
There is no evidence the landlord failed in his duty to attend to the leak issues promptly. It is arguable that the landlord should have arranged for a drying machine in this unit as part of his maintenance obligations after the hot-water cylinder leak, as water had entered most rooms in the unit. A rent rebate (to recognise the inconvenience) and/or contribution towards the tenants’ power would also have been appropriate.
However, the tenants accept they did not ask for a drying machine or for financial compensation at the time. For this reason, I have decided not to award compensation now. It is best to raise concerns at the time they occur because then the other person can deal with it, or if they don’t, an application can be made to the Tribunal when events are fresh in everyone’s memory.
The other maintenance issue raised was that a latch on a bedroom window was broken at the start of the tenancy (recorded on the ingoing inspection report) and the tenants say this was never fixed. They say there was a gap which allowed a draught. The landlord agrees the latch was broken and says the window was seized. He denies there was a gap. He has now riveted the window shut which is probably a reasonable solution as there is another opening window in the room to allow ventilation.
Clearly, maintenance issues should be fixed. The tenants included the issue in an email to the landlord in October 2023. To not attend to this for nearly five years is a maintenance breach by the landlord.
However, I have decided not to award compensation. There was no photo to show me whether there was a gap or not, so it is not proven there was a draught, and I again advise that if something is a concern, it should be raised and pursued at the time. End of tenancy cleaning
Tenants have a legal obligation to leave 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 landlord supplied photographs that show specific areas of the unit were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy (eg rangehood, oven drawer, very dusty skirtings).
However, a long-range photo of the lounge and the tenants’ photos satisfy me that the premises were vacuumed, and the kitchen was mostly reasonably clean (except the few missed areas). Some of the landlord’s photos are of areas I would not usually expect a tenant to clean such as underneath the cutlery tray and oven drawer, and cobwebs outside. The landlord said he was renovating the bathroom so told the tenants not to bother cleaning that.
My decision is to require the tenants to contribute towards the cost of cleaning.
The landlord supplied an invoice for $862.50 for a “full deep clean” to bring the unit up to standard ready to rent out. After the hearing, I noticed that:- a. The invoice is dated 21 August 2025 which is nearly 3 months after the tenancy ended; and b. The landlord first asked the tenants to pay $400.00 towards “deep clean of the house” in an email 1 dated 17 June 2025.
I cannot ask the landlord why the amount has changed or why the invoice is dated so long after the tenancy ended because the hearing has finished. I have decided to award the landlord $250.00 which is about five hours work (at $50.00 per hour) which is what I consider reasonable to clean the areas missed by the tenants. This is about two-thirds of the first amount the landlord asked for ($400.00). Disposal of tenants’ goods
The tenants accidentally left some baking items behind at the property (a cooking tray, 3 silicon baking tins, a grater, reusable plastic cutlery). They say the landlord did not let them know or they would have collected these.
The tenants are correct that if a tenant leaves on the premises goods that are neither foodstuffs nor other perishable goods, the landlord must, immediately after taking possession of the premises, make all reasonable efforts to contact the tenant and to agree with the tenant on a period within which the tenant is to collect the goods. See section 62(2) RTA.
The landlord accepts he did not do this. He said he assumed the tenants did not want the things that had been left behind, so he disposed of them.
This is a breach of section 33 RTA which says that it is an unlawful act for a landlord to take or dispose of a tenant’s goods. A landlord does not breach this section if they first try to contact the tenant and are reasonable about making arrangements to collect the items. 2
The Tribunal can award a fine (exemplary damages) of a maximum of $3,000.00 for breaching section 33; Schedule 1A RTA.
I accept the landlord genuinely thought the baking items were left behind because they were not wanted by the tenants, so I do not award exemplary damages. The items were relatively minor, and he had had conversations with the tenant who was doing the final move-out so assumed she had taken everything that was wanted. However, the landlord was wrong and the tenants’ suffered loss. I have no estimate of value so award $30.00 as compensation towards purchasing replacement items. 1 Supplied by the tenant with her application documents. 2 Section 33 says that nothing in that section applies if a landlord has disposed of goods in accordance with the requirements in sections 62 to 62C RTA. Lounge carpet
The landlord has asked the tenants to contribute 50% of the replacement cost of carpet in the lounge in the unit.
For a damage claim to be successful, 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
If careless damage is proven, the most a tenant can be liable for is the lesser of any insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3) RTA.
My decision is that the landlord has not proven the lounge carpet was stained during this tenancy and the claim must be dismissed. My reasons for this decision are:- a. the ingoing inspection report notes the lounge carpet was already stained from previous tenants but there are no ingoing photos of the existing stains to compare with the photos taken at the end of the tenancy. The stains at the end may be the same as the ones at the start of the tenancy; b. even if there were new stains, the landlord did not take any photos after he tried to remove them from the carpet. This means I cannot assess whether the stains were permanent. They may have been able to be removed with professional cleaning; c. the tenants’ evidence proves all three leak incidents affected the lounge. I agree with the tenants that this would not have helped the condition of the carpet and could have stained it; d. not only was the carpet already stained at the start of the tenancy, but it was eight years old by the end of this tenancy. The Inland Revenue Department estimates a useful life of eight years for carpet in residential rental property. 3 In other words, even if the landlord had proven the carpet was stained during this tenancy, arguably he has not suffered a loss as the carpet was due to be replaced anyway. Filing fees and suppression of names
Both parties are partly successful, so I make no award about filing fees.
I order suppression of both parties’ names for the same reason and because there is no conduct of significant concern by either party. 3 Carpet installed after 1 April 2011 estimated at 8 years. Modular nylon carpet before this date is estimated at 15.5 years and other carpet at 5 years. See General Depreciation Rates in IR265, pg 36.
That said, the landlord needs to take care to comply with all legal requirements. The tenancy agreement was missing compulsory compliance statements which have been required for many years. 4

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290959 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5290959 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions