Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5294083 — Cleanliness
Decided 29 Sept 2025 · Published 29 Sept 2025 · Application 5294083
- Cleanliness
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ and tenant’s name and identifying details.
- [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $187.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $187.99 [The tenant/s]: $2,912.01
Reasons
- The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has now ended, but there are disputes around various matters at the end of the tenancy.
- Both parties appeared at the hearing. [Lanldord] appeared in person for both landlords, the tenant appeared by telephone. Background
- The background of the case will be discussed more fully below. However, the Tribunal notes the tenancy commenced on 18 December 2024 with the fixed term ending on 18 June 2025. The tenant vacated the property on the 3 June 2025 and left the country on the 4 June 2025.
- Various matters arose between the parties which are now the subject of the claims before the Tribunal. Landlords’ claims
- At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears. b. Refund of the bond. c. Compensation for cleaning costs. d. Compensation for rubbish removal costs. e. Compensation for lawn mowing costs. f. Compensation for key replacement costs. g. Compensation for pressure washing the driveway and patio. h. Compensation for the replacement cost of a glass recycling crate. i. Compensation for the replacement costs of a ripped net curtain. j. Reimbursement of the filing fee. Tenant’s Claims
- At the hearing, the tenant confirmed her claims are: a. Refund of the bond. b. Compensation for failing to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. c. Market rent. d. General damages for emotional harm. Relevant legal considerations
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally 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. b. 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. c. 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. Compensation
- The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the Act. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety. Landlords’ claims
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlord seeks $25.00 rent arrears and provided rent records which prove the amount owed.
- The landlord said the tenant paid $750.00 rent in cash on the day she left the property. The rent was short by $25.00 which the tenant said she would pay by bank transfer. The landlord told the Tribunal the cash payment was unexpected as the tenancy agreement required rent to be paid by bank transfer. As a result, the landlord said he had not been in a position to issue a written receipt.
- The tenant denied being in rent arrears. She told the Tribunal she had paid the landlord $760.00 rent in cash on the day she left the property, and he told her not to worry about the remaining $15.00. The tenant said the landlord failed to issue her with a receipt for the cash payment, despite it being arranged the previous evening. Analysis and decision
- Section 40(1) of the Act requires tenants to pay rent as and when it falls due under the tenancy agreement.
- In this case there is a dispute between the parties over how much rent was paid in cash and whether the outstanding amount was forgiven.
- Having heard from the parties and considered all of the evidence, the Tribunal finds that rent of $25.00 remains outstanding. The landlord’s rent ledger properly records a cash rent payment of $750.00. There is no reason for the landlord to incorrectly record the amount of rent received from the tenant given the claim before the Tribunal. The amount claimed is awarded.
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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act. Compensation for cleaning costs
- The landlord seeks $548.00 for cleaning costs after paying a contractor to clean the property at the end of the tenancy.
- No pre-tenancy inspection photographs were provided to the Tribunal showing the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The landlord provided the Tribunal with end of tenancy inspection photographs which showed the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord specifically drew the Tribunals’ attention to photographs showing the following: a. The oven door was dirty and the rangehood was dusty and greasy. b. A large amount of hair was removed from the drain of the shower. The landlord stated the shower would not drain as it was clogged with hair. c. A large amount of hair was removed from the drain in the ensuite sink. d. An amount of hair was removed from the drain in the bathtub. e. The Tribunal noted a stain on the carpet in the lounge.
- The tenant disputes the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said she had spent hours cleaning the property and had arranged for the carpet to be professionally cleaned (invoice provided) before returning the keys to the landlord.
- The tenant produced a receipt dated 13 January 2025 showing she had the property professionally cleaned shortly after the commencement of her tenancy.
- The tenant maintained the property was always cleaned to a high standard. She provided screen shots of reviews (between 8 February 2025 and 14 May 2025) from Airbnb guests, rating the cleanliness of the property as ten out of ten. Analysis and decision
- In this case there is a dispute between the parties over whether or not the property was left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
- The Act requires that the tenant provided the premises to the landlord in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the end of the tenancy(section 40(1)(e)(iii)). It is important to note that the Act does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
- The landlord did not provide any pre-tenancy inspection photographs showing the cleanliness of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. However, the landlord did produce end of tenancy photographs showing significant amounts of hair in the shower, ensuite sink and bathtub drains, a dirty oven and range hood, and a stain on the lounge carpet.
- The tenant claims the property was left clean and tidy and provided a receipt showing the property was professionally cleaned on 11 January 2025, and reviews from Airbnb guests stating the cleanliness of the property was ten out of ten.
- Having hearing from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal could not be certain of the cleanliness of the oven and rangehood at the commencement of the tenancy. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the tenant was responsible for the carpet stain. The Tribunal finds that the tenant did leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy with the exception of the hair left in the drains and awards $50.00 compensation. Rubbish removal
- The landlord seeks $72.99 for rubbish removal costs after paying to dump rubbish left by the tenant at the end of the tenancy and an invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
- The landlord said the tenant left the Council provided rubbish and recycling bins full at the end of the tenancy, which the end of tenancy photographs proved. The landlord said that despite being told about the Council’s rubbish and recycling bin system, the tenant failed to separate their rubbish which meant the Council would not remove it via normal curb side collection. The landlord said the tenant left a small amount of rubbish inside the property which also had to be disposed of.
- The tenant states that she asked the landlords to place the rubbish bins out for curb side collection, which they agreed to do. The tenant disputes rubbish was left in the property claiming it was food the landlord’s had agreed to take. Analysis and decision
- Section 40(1)(e)(iii) requires tenants to remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. In this case the tenant acknowledges that rubbish was left at the property, in the Council provided bins, which she claims the landlords agreed to put out for curb side collection.
- The landlord denies agreeing to place the rubbish out for curb side collection and said he did not want to take care of it because it was incorrectly sorted. The landlord said he spoke to the tenant about the rubbish at the exit inspection but was told by the tenant that she was in a rush and wasn’t going to do anything about it.
- Having heard from the parties and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant failed to remove all rubbish from the property. The amount claimed is awarded. Lawn mowing
- The landlord seeks lawn mowing costs totalling $88.00 stating the lawns were left overgrown at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states that the cost includes $60.00 for their time and $18.00 towards the costs of garden waste collection fees.
- The tenant denies the lawns were left overgrown at the end of the tenancy. She said the lawns had not grown between 13 January 2025, when she paid a lawn mowing contractor recommended by the landlord $40.00 to cut the grass, and 3 June 2025 when she vacated the property. Analysis and decision
- This claim is in relation to the exterior of the premises, in short, the landlord’s position is that the lawns were not returned reasonably clean and tidy.
- The tenant accepts that the lawns were not mown between 13 January 2025 and 3 June 2025 and claimed the grass did not grow during this period. The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s explanation for not mowing the lawns at the end of the tenancy. The landlords seek $88.00 reimbursement for their time to mow the lawns and garden waste removal costs. A contractor previously mowed the lawns for $40.00. On that basis the tribunal awards the landlords $40.00 for lawn mowing costs. Replacement keys
- The landlord states the tenant failed to return the side gate padlock, ranch slider bolts and mailbox keys at the end of the tenancy and seeks $30.00 replacement costs.
- The tenant states that all keys were returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy, including the extra keys she had cut for her Airbnb guests. Analysis and decision
- Section 40(1)(e)(iv) requires tenants to return all keys, security or pass cards or other such devices at the end of the tenancy.
- The Tribunal was not provided with any pre-tenancy inspection photographs showing the existence of a side gate padlock, ranch slider bolts and mailbox keys, nor was an invoice for the amount claimed provided.
- Given the lack of available evidence the claim is dismissed. Pressure washing of the patio and driveway
- The landlord seeks $235.73 for pressure washing the driveway and patio area and provided an invoice for the amount claimed.
- The landlords said they are entitled to recover this cost from the tenant after including a custom clause in the tenancy agreement which states: “The tenant is responsible for maintaining the lawns, gardens, patio, and driveway, this includes regular mowing of the lawn at least once a month and trimming hedges or water blasting when required. If the tenant does not maintain these areas to an acceptable level, the landlord will arrange this at the tenant’s expense.”
- The tenant disputes the amount claimed stating that pressure washing of the patio and driveway is routine maintenance and the responsibility of the landlord. In addition to this, the tenant provided the Tribunal with photographs of the patio and driveway at the commencement of the tenancy which show the concrete to be weathered and weeds growing through the cracks. Analysis and decision
- Section 45(1)(b) of the Act requires landlords to “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regards to the age and character of the premises...”.
- Section 11 of the Act states that any term of a tenancy agreement that is inconsistent with the Act shall have no effect.
- In this case the landlord has attempted to contract out of their statutory obligations for general maintenance by requiring the tenant to pressure wash the driveway and patio area under a custom clause of the tenancy agreement. The custom clause is inconsistent with the landlords’ statutory obligation and has no effect. The claim for costs for pressure washing the driveway and patio is dismissed. Recycling glass crate
- The landlord states the tenant cracked the recycling glass crate during the tenancy and seeks compensation of $18.00 after buying a new one and provided a receipt for the amount claimed.
- The tenant states that she was not aware that the property had a recycling glass crate until it was placed at her front door by a neighbour. The tenant denies being responsible for the damage to the crate and stated that it was damaged when she received it. Analysis and decision
- The Tribunal was not provided with any pre-tenancy inspection reports or photographs showing the condition of the recycling glass crate at the commencement of the tenancy. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant damaged the recycling glass crate, and the claim for compensation is dismissed. Replacement net curtain
- The landlord states the tenant ripped the net curtain hanging in the lounge during the tenancy and seeks replacement costs of $30.00.
- The landlord said the curtain was approximately four or five years old and hung in front of a ranch slider and was used for both privacy and as a sun filter.
- The tenant denied ripping the curtain and said that it had been tied up in a knot at the commencement of the tenancy and remained like that while she lived in the property. Analysis and decision
- There were no pre-tenancy photographs showing the condition of the curtain at the commencement of the tenancy. The end of tenancy photographs shows the net curtain is ripped. The tenant denies being responsible for the damage.
- Based on the evidence available, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant ripped the net curtain during their tenancy and the claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claims Failing to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition
- The tenant seeks compensation from the landlord for failing to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The tenant states that after she moved in it became apparent that the carpet had an infestation which was caused her cat to itch. The tenant said she arranged for the carpets to be cleaned and provided an invoice for $250.00 from the contractor she paid to do the job. The Tribunal noted that the invoice for the carpet cleaning was dated 14 December 2024, four days prior to the commencement of the tenancy, which the tenant said must be an administrative error on the part of the contractor.
- In addition to the carpet infestation, the tenant said the two plastic bins under the kitchen sink smelt terrible and were crawling with maggots, which she cleaned up.
- The tenant said she paid for a professional clean of the property prior to her first Airbnb guests arriving after failing to remove a build-up of white scum in the bathroom. An invoice dated 13 January 2025 in the amount of $130.20 was provided.
- The tenant accepted she failed to notify the landlords of the cleanliness and carpet infestation issues until after she had resolved them. She said she had considered the landlords to have been her friends and that she did not want to disturb them while they were on holiday over the Christmas period.
- The landlord disputes the tenant’s claims, and states the property was in a good clean condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The landlord said there had never been maggots living in the property and suggested the issues arose due to limited ventilation and the tenant’s cat living permanently inside. The landlord said had the tenant reported the infestation and cleanliness issues to them they would have investigated and remedied the situation. Analysis and decision
- Section 45(1)(a) of the Act requires landlord to provide the premises to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- In this case the tenant alleges the landlord failed to provide the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition claiming there was an infestation in the carpet, maggots and a smell under the sink, and a white scum build-up in the bathroom. The tenant did not provide the Tribunal with any photographic or video evidence of these alleged issues.
- The tenant accepts that she failed to notify the landlord of the issues or provide the landlord with the opportunity to investigate and remedy her complaints.
- Having heard from the parties and after considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied the landlord failed to provide the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the claim is dismissed.
- Had the Tribunal found the landlord had breached their obligations under section 45(1)(a) the claim would have been dismissed. This was because the tenant failed to bring the issues to the landlords’ attention at the time of discovery, which meant the landlord was not given the opportunity to investigate and remedy the situation. Market rent
- The tenant claims that the landlord charged rent in excess of market rates. The tenant seeks compensation for the difference between the rent she was charged, and the median market rent for comparable properties. Analysis and decision
- Section 25(1) of the Act states that a tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring the rent to be above market rent and, where it is found to exceed market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount in line with the market rent.
- Section 25(2)(a) of the Act requires market rent claims to be brought within three months of the commencement of a fixed term tenancy.
- The tenant brought the claim for market rent six months after the commencement of the fixed term tenancy. The claim is made out of time and is dismissed. Compensation for emotional harm
- The tenant seeks emotional harm compensation from the landlords.
- The tenant said that prior to renting the landlords’ property the parties had been friends. The tenant said that she had felt pressured into renting the landlords property after they had offered it to her at a reduced rate (following a discussion where she indicated she could not pay the rent amount they sought), and after they suggested she could let out the spare bedrooms on Airbnb to help cover the costs.
- In addition to this, the tenant stated that she suffered significant financial hardship at the end of the tenancy causing anxiety and migraine headaches after the landlord refused to release the bond and filed an application with the Tribunal.
- The tenant said despite paying rent to 18 June 2025, the landlords failed to notify her of their concerns about the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenant maintained that had she been aware of their issues she could have arranged for them to have been resolved, which would have meant the bond could have been released to her in full. The tenant said the landlords knew she was relying on the bond money to purchase furniture for her new home.
- The landlords deny placing any pressure on the tenant to rent their property and maintained she signed the tenancy agreement willingly after viewing the property and agreeing to a reduced rent.
- The landlord stated that the tenant was aware of the majority of issues they had with the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy as they were raised with her during the exit inspection. The landlord said that tenant had indicated to them that she had done as much as she intended to do and would not be doing anything more as she was moving back to England. The landlord accepts they did not try to resolve the issues with the tenant upon her return to England but said that was because they had been instructed not to contact her.
- The landlord said their decision not to agree to refund the bond in full but in part, was because there was a dispute. The landlord said their decision to apply to the Tribunal was on the advice of Tenancy Services as a way of achieving resolution of the matter. Analysis and decision
- In this case the Tribunal must question whether the tenant’s evidence supports her claim that the landlord’s behaviour breached the provisions of the Act or the terms of her tenancy agreement causing her emotional distress, anxiety and migraine headaches sufficient to warrant an award for general damages.
- I do not find the tenant was pressured into signing a tenancy agreement to rent the property. What the tenant described was a negotiation between the parties resulting in the rent being reduced to an amount the tenant was willing to pay, and the landlord was willing to receive. An additional agreement was made between the parties allowing the tenant to let out the spare bedrooms on Airbnb to subsidise her rent payments.
- The Tribunal notes that both landlords and tenants have a statutory right to file an application with the Tribunal to resolve disputes under the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlords’ actions in withholding part of the bond and filing an application with the Tribunal, was made in bad faith, vexatious, or amounted to an abuse of process. While the tenant may have felt anxious and suffered from migraine in response to the situation, the landlord’s actions were not a breach of their obligations under the tenancy agreement or the Act. The landlords were simply exercising their statutory rights. The claim is dismissed. Costs
- Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
- Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
- The applicant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
- The respondent has also been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.