What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297001 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5297001?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $531.88 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Handyman Works: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297001?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12979904-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5297001 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5297001?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $531.88 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Handyman Works: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.39 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5297001?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5297001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12979904-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5297001 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297001 — net $2,271.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$550.00	Carpet Cleaning
Handyman works	$862.50	Handyman works
Cleaning	$531.88	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$300.39	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,271.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,271.77

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. The Tribunal also orders name suppression to apply for [The previous tenant].
Jarmell Teau Hunter must pay [The landlord/s] $2,271.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$550.00 Handyman works$862.50 Cleaning$531.88 Lawns and Garden work$300.39 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,271.77

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenants.
The tenancy has ended, but the landlord seeks compensation for remediation of the premises after possession was returned. There is also an issue in relation to who the correct respondent(s) are.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 13 September 2022. At the start of the tenancy, there were two co-tenants, [The previous tenant] and Ms Hunter.
The landlord is [The landlord/s]. The landlord’s representative is [The landlord’s representative].
Sometime around 2023, [The previous tenant] moved out. While I can see some communications between the tenants and landlord about Ms Hunter continuing as the sole tenant, I have not seen any communication where it was agreed by all three to remove [The previous tenant] as the tenant.
The tenancy ended on 12 May 2025.
The landlord filed this claim with the Tribunal for cleaning and repair costs. The landlord named both [The previous tenant] and Ms Hunter as the respondent tenants.
A hearing was convened before Adjudicator Ms Small. At that hearing, only [The previous tenant] attended. Ms Small noted there was an issue around who the correct respondents (tenants) would be. The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to file any evidence in relation to that question.
A hearing was then convened today, by video. [The landlord’s representative] attended for the landlord, but only [The previous tenant] attended for the tenants. Ms Hunter did not join the meeting by video, and when I telephoned the only number available for Ms Hunter (twice), that call was not successful.
Noting that Ms Hunter did attend the first hearing, and as I was satisfied that the hearing notices have been properly served, I have proceeded to consider the landlord’s claims.

CORRECT RESPONDENTS

As indicated above, there is no evidence before the Tribunal which shows that the parties agreed to vary the tenancy to remove [The previous tenant] from the tenancy agreement when she moved out around 2023.
However, at the hearing today, [The landlord’s representative] confirmed that [The previous tenant] was not living in the premises at the end of the tenancy, and to that extent, the landlord agrees that any of the costs incurred should not be the liability of [The previous tenant]. On that basis the landlord confirmed that it should only be Ms Hunter who any order is made against.
That being the case, I will proceed on the basis that the claim is only against Ms Hunter.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Carpet cleaning $550.00 b. Handyman and plaster repairs $862.50 c. Cleaning $531.88 d. Exterior tidy $300.39

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
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.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 – Carpet cleaning

The landlord states that the tenant had dogs inside the premises. The premises had an offensive smell, there was cat faeces inside the house, so carpet cleaning was required.
In response, [The previous tenant] confirmed that Ms Hunter had a dog in the premises and a kitten. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA 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 photographs presented do support the conclusion that the premises were not returned to the landlord reasonably clean.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the premises had an unpleasant odour, which would also be consistent with having animals inside the premises.
I find this claim has been established, Ms Hunter must be liable for the carpet cleaning cost. The invoice confirms that cost as $550.00. Claim 2 – Handyman and plaster repairs
The landlords states that there were some pre-existing defects with the premises, and no claim is made for that, but the claim is to remove large hooks from the bedroom that were holding a trellis on an interior wall. Further, there was damage to the French doors, which had probably been damaged by a dog jumping on the door. There were also missing handles in the kitchen. Curtains needed to be rehung.
[The previous tenant] was not able to add anything in relation to this claim, noting it was not like that when she left the premises in 2023. Analysis
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Taking the photographs into consideration, I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, and is not fair wear and tear. The tenant(s) have not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage.
The invoice records the work undertaken by the Handyman as that described above. I find the tenant is liable for the full cost of this work, which is $862.50. Claim 3 - Cleaning
The landlord’s position is that the tenant made no effort to clean the premises. The kitchen was in bad condition as reflected in the photographs, there were items in drawers, cupboard needed cleaning, the laundry was dirty, the heatpump was dirty. The bathroom drawers were stained and dirty, the bath had cat faeces in it, the shower was dirty. The floor not carpeted, needed cleaning.
[The previous tenant] advised that she could not add anything to this claim. Analysis
As noted above, the tenant must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The photographs confirm the tenant did not achieve that.
The invoice for the cleaning is for $531.88. That seems commensurate with the work that would reasonably have been required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state. This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Claim 4 – Exterior works
The final claim from the landlord relates to exterior works. The landlord states that the lawns were overgrown, there were weeds that needed removal. The exterior had dog faeces that needed removal, and that there was a ‘residue’ on the back wall by the deck. There was broken glass on the grounds.
Again [The previous tenant] had nothing to add to this claim. Analysis
Like the inside of the premises, the tenant needs to return the exterior of the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The photographs support that the work claimed was necessary, and likely to fall within the tenant’s responsibility. This claim is established. The invoiced amount of $300.39 is ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, which given the landlord has been wholly successful, is ordered.
The Tribunal also orders name suppression to apply for [The previous tenant]. I accept that [The previous tenant] was not responsible for the damage or state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, so it is fair to include her in the name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5297001 — net $2,271.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$550.00	Carpet Cleaning
Handyman works	$862.50	Handyman works
Cleaning	$531.88	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$300.39	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,271.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,271.77

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. The Tribunal also orders name suppression to apply for [The previous tenant].
Jarmell Teau Hunter must pay [The landlord/s] $2,271.77 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$550.00 Handyman works$862.50 Cleaning$531.88 Lawns and Garden work$300.39 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,271.77

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenants.
The tenancy has ended, but the landlord seeks compensation for remediation of the premises after possession was returned. There is also an issue in relation to who the correct respondent(s) are.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 13 September 2022. At the start of the tenancy, there were two co-tenants, [The previous tenant] and Ms Hunter.
The landlord is [The landlord/s]. The landlord’s representative is [The landlord’s representative].
Sometime around 2023, [The previous tenant] moved out. While I can see some communications between the tenants and landlord about Ms Hunter continuing as the sole tenant, I have not seen any communication where it was agreed by all three to remove [The previous tenant] as the tenant.
The tenancy ended on 12 May 2025.
The landlord filed this claim with the Tribunal for cleaning and repair costs. The landlord named both [The previous tenant] and Ms Hunter as the respondent tenants.
A hearing was convened before Adjudicator Ms Small. At that hearing, only [The previous tenant] attended. Ms Small noted there was an issue around who the correct respondents (tenants) would be. The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to file any evidence in relation to that question.
A hearing was then convened today, by video. [The landlord’s representative] attended for the landlord, but only [The previous tenant] attended for the tenants. Ms Hunter did not join the meeting by video, and when I telephoned the only number available for Ms Hunter (twice), that call was not successful.
Noting that Ms Hunter did attend the first hearing, and as I was satisfied that the hearing notices have been properly served, I have proceeded to consider the landlord’s claims.

CORRECT RESPONDENTS

As indicated above, there is no evidence before the Tribunal which shows that the parties agreed to vary the tenancy to remove [The previous tenant] from the tenancy agreement when she moved out around 2023.
However, at the hearing today, [The landlord’s representative] confirmed that [The previous tenant] was not living in the premises at the end of the tenancy, and to that extent, the landlord agrees that any of the costs incurred should not be the liability of [The previous tenant]. On that basis the landlord confirmed that it should only be Ms Hunter who any order is made against.
That being the case, I will proceed on the basis that the claim is only against Ms Hunter.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Carpet cleaning $550.00 b. Handyman and plaster repairs $862.50 c. Cleaning $531.88 d. Exterior tidy $300.39

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
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.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 – Carpet cleaning

The landlord states that the tenant had dogs inside the premises. The premises had an offensive smell, there was cat faeces inside the house, so carpet cleaning was required.
In response, [The previous tenant] confirmed that Ms Hunter had a dog in the premises and a kitten. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA 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 photographs presented do support the conclusion that the premises were not returned to the landlord reasonably clean.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that the premises had an unpleasant odour, which would also be consistent with having animals inside the premises.
I find this claim has been established, Ms Hunter must be liable for the carpet cleaning cost. The invoice confirms that cost as $550.00. Claim 2 – Handyman and plaster repairs
The landlords states that there were some pre-existing defects with the premises, and no claim is made for that, but the claim is to remove large hooks from the bedroom that were holding a trellis on an interior wall. Further, there was damage to the French doors, which had probably been damaged by a dog jumping on the door. There were also missing handles in the kitchen. Curtains needed to be rehung.
[The previous tenant] was not able to add anything in relation to this claim, noting it was not like that when she left the premises in 2023. Analysis
With any compensation claim, to receive an order the party must incur a loss. In short, the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Taking the photographs into consideration, I am satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, and is not fair wear and tear. The tenant(s) have not proven that the damage was not careless or intentional damage.
The invoice records the work undertaken by the Handyman as that described above. I find the tenant is liable for the full cost of this work, which is $862.50. Claim 3 - Cleaning
The landlord’s position is that the tenant made no effort to clean the premises. The kitchen was in bad condition as reflected in the photographs, there were items in drawers, cupboard needed cleaning, the laundry was dirty, the heatpump was dirty. The bathroom drawers were stained and dirty, the bath had cat faeces in it, the shower was dirty. The floor not carpeted, needed cleaning.
[The previous tenant] advised that she could not add anything to this claim. Analysis
As noted above, the tenant must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The photographs confirm the tenant did not achieve that.
The invoice for the cleaning is for $531.88. That seems commensurate with the work that would reasonably have been required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state. This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Claim 4 – Exterior works
The final claim from the landlord relates to exterior works. The landlord states that the lawns were overgrown, there were weeds that needed removal. The exterior had dog faeces that needed removal, and that there was a ‘residue’ on the back wall by the deck. There was broken glass on the grounds.
Again [The previous tenant] had nothing to add to this claim. Analysis
Like the inside of the premises, the tenant needs to return the exterior of the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The photographs support that the work claimed was necessary, and likely to fall within the tenant’s responsibility. This claim is established. The invoiced amount of $300.39 is ordered in full.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, which given the landlord has been wholly successful, is ordered.
The Tribunal also orders name suppression to apply for [The previous tenant]. I accept that [The previous tenant] was not responsible for the damage or state of the premises at the end of the tenancy, so it is fair to include her in the name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297001 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5297001 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CORRECT RESPONDENTS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CORRECT RESPONDENTS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions