What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300262 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5300262?

Agreed Between The Parties: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $584.18 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $640.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300262?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12651222-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300262 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5300262?

Agreed Between The Parties: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $584.18 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $640.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300262?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300262?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12651222-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300262 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300262 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300262 — net $2,452.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Agreed between the parties	$1,200.00	Agreed between the parties
Carpet cleaning	$584.18	Carpet cleaning
Carpet replacement	$640.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$2,452.18
Bond	$6,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,452.18

Claims and awards for application 5300262 — net $2,452.18 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Agreed between the parties

Amount: $1,200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Agreed between the parties

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $584.18
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Carpet replacement

Amount: $640.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement

Filing fee

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee

Net award

Landlord $2,452.18

Bond

Landlord $6,000.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,452.18

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — Application fee
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Exemplary damages

Order

The landlord’s name and identifying details must not be published.
Paul D'Sylva and Christine Veronica Gough must pay the landlord $2,452.18 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for carpet damage and carpet cleaning are allowed. All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $2,452.18 Paul D'Sylva and Christine Veronica Gough: $3,547.82

Reasons

All the parties attended the hearing. Background and claims
The tenancy began on 27 May 2022 and ended on 31 May 2025.
The landlord seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
She seeks compensation for the tenants allegedly: a. not leaving the garden reasonably tidy, b. damaging the sleepout’s carpet, c. not leaving the carpets reasonably clean, and d. leaving a concrete block in the garden.
She seeks exemplary damages for the tenants allegedly: a. keeping pets indoors in breach of the tenancy agreement, b. cutting a hose, c. damaging a wheelie bin lid, d. failing to report damage to barn posts, and e. dumping concrete in the garden.
I have found the tenants liable to the landlord for damage to the sleepout’s carpet and for carpet cleaning. The landlord’s claims for those are allowed. I have not found the landlord’s other claims proven. They are dismissed.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the tenants comply with their duty to leave the garden and the carpets reasonably clean and tidy? b. Did the tenants damage the sleepout’s carpet? c. Did the tenants commit an unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded?

Did the tenants leave the garden and the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

Legal principles

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 2 1 I first issued this decision on 1 November 2025. I withdrew the decision and reissued it on 3 November 2025 to add in the $28.00 filing fee which had been omitted in error. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii).
“Reasonably clean and tidy” means clean and tidy to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness and tidiness does not mean spotless, immaculate, commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. After a tenant moves out leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy, the landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness and tidiness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness inside or a few weeds in the garden does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean and tidy overall.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning and tidying may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 3
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Did the tenants leave the garden reasonably tidy?

The landlord provided photographs of the garden prior to the tenancy beginning, after the tenancy ended, and after she had done work on the garden.
The landlord’s photographs of the garden near the house were taken about a week after the tenancy ended.
In the photographs of the garden at the end of the tenancy, the appears reasonably tidy in those photographs in my view. The hedge is not so neatly trimmed as the landlord achieved after the tenants moved out, but the hedge was trimmed and in any event, hedge, shrub, and tree trimming is typically treated as falling within the landlord’s maintenance duties under s 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which requires the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord is aggrieved at the appearance in the garden of two large toetoe plants. The tenants say they did not plant them but nor did they weed them out. The toetoe enhanced the front of the property to my eye, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and one person’s specimen shrub is another person’s weed. It is unsurprising the tenants did not remove the toetoe. I do not consider their “failure” to do so left the garden untidy.
The landlord had taken some other garden photographs on 23 June 2025, three weeks after the tenancy ended. The grass is a little longer than at the beginning of the tenancy, but it has to be borne in mind that when the photographs were taken, the grass had three weeks’ growth since the tenancy ended. Similarly, a photograph taken a few days earlier shows kikuyu grass growing over a wooden walkway in a paddock area. Some of the growth would be due to the delay in taking the photograph and while 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. it probably would not be as well trimmed as at the beginning of the tenancy, I do not consider that the garden was not left reasonably cleans overall.
The landlord’s claim in respect to the garden is dismissed.

Did the tenants leave the carpets reasonably clean?

The landlord said she had to clean the premises carpet due to the effects of pet soiling. The tenants acknowledged that one of their cats got unwell and may have soiled the carpets, albeit not to the extent the landlord claimed.
The tenants had thoroughly cleaned the carpets and considered the carpets were clean. However, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the soiling had not been cleaned sufficiently to rid the carpet of pet odours.
I find this claim proven.
I order the tenants to reimburse the landlord for her carpet cleaning costs, which the landlord proved by way of invoices and also for about four hours of the landlord’s time. I consider that the total amount of $584.18 is reasonable in the circumstances. Did the tenants damage the sleepout’s carpet?
The tenants accepted that their daughter had damaged the sleepout’s carpet when using hair dye.
The landlord provided a quote to replace the damaged section of carpet including the cost of the carpet and the labour and associated costs to remove the damaged section of carpet and replace it.
It is not entirely clear that the landlord will carry out the repair at this time, but she may. Even if she does not repair the carpet, she should be compensated for the loss of value caused by the staining.
I consider it appropriate to order the tenants to pay the landlord $640.00 for the carpet damage.

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages against the tenants?

The landlord sought exemplary damages orders for the tenants keeping pets indoors in breach of the tenancy agreement, cutting a hose, damaging a wheelie bin lid, failing to report damage to barn posts, and dumping concrete in the garden.
The tenants accepted they had acquired two cats without discussion them with the landlord. The landlord later kindly allowed them to keep the cats so long as they largely lived outside when she found out about it herself.
The tenants also accepted they cut the hose because it developed a hole. They attached a new hose to the stump of the old hose but took the new section of hose with them when they moved out. When the landlord complained, they gave her a replacement hose. They denied damaging the hose reel, which they say did not work due to wear and tear.
The tenants deny damaging the wheelie bin lid. They say it was probably damaged by the wheelie bin collector – a common occurrence.
The tenants accept not informing the landlord promptly about the damage to the barn’s posts, but say they always intended to fix the damage themselves and believe they have done so.
The tenants deny dumping a chunk of concrete in the garden.
It is not necessary to discuss these allegations further because even if they were proved none of them would amount to an unlawful act under the RTA and the Tribunal can only award exemplary damages if there is an unlawful act.
The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Application fee
The tenants must reimburse the landlord for the application fee because she has substantially succeeded in her claims, and I consider that is fair and just. 4 Bond
The Tribunal will direct the Bond Centre to distribute the bond in accordance with the Tribunal’s monetary orders. Non-publication of landlord’s details
The landlord seeks an order for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 5
The landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider notwithstanding the presumption of non-publication that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300262 — net $2,452.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Agreed between the parties	$1,200.00	Agreed between the parties
Carpet cleaning	$584.18	Carpet cleaning
Carpet replacement	$640.00	Carpet replacement
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$2,452.18
Bond	$6,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,452.18

Claims and awards for application 5300262 — net $2,452.18 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Agreed between the parties

Amount: $1,200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Agreed between the parties

Carpet cleaning

Amount: $584.18
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet cleaning

Carpet replacement

Amount: $640.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet replacement

Filing fee

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee

Net award

Landlord $2,452.18

Bond

Landlord $6,000.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $2,452.18

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — Application fee
Other Claims — All other claims dismissed

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage Exemplary damages

Order

The landlord’s name and identifying details must not be published.
Paul D'Sylva and Christine Veronica Gough must pay the landlord $2,452.18 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for carpet damage and carpet cleaning are allowed. All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $2,452.18 Paul D'Sylva and Christine Veronica Gough: $3,547.82

Reasons

All the parties attended the hearing. Background and claims
The tenancy began on 27 May 2022 and ended on 31 May 2025.
The landlord seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
She seeks compensation for the tenants allegedly: a. not leaving the garden reasonably tidy, b. damaging the sleepout’s carpet, c. not leaving the carpets reasonably clean, and d. leaving a concrete block in the garden.
She seeks exemplary damages for the tenants allegedly: a. keeping pets indoors in breach of the tenancy agreement, b. cutting a hose, c. damaging a wheelie bin lid, d. failing to report damage to barn posts, and e. dumping concrete in the garden.
I have found the tenants liable to the landlord for damage to the sleepout’s carpet and for carpet cleaning. The landlord’s claims for those are allowed. I have not found the landlord’s other claims proven. They are dismissed.
The issues for determination are: a. Did the tenants comply with their duty to leave the garden and the carpets reasonably clean and tidy? b. Did the tenants damage the sleepout’s carpet? c. Did the tenants commit an unlawful act for which exemplary damages should be awarded?

Did the tenants leave the garden and the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

Legal principles

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 2 1 I first issued this decision on 1 November 2025. I withdrew the decision and reissued it on 3 November 2025 to add in the $28.00 filing fee which had been omitted in error. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii).
“Reasonably clean and tidy” means clean and tidy to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness and tidiness does not mean spotless, immaculate, commercially clean, hotel or motel standard. After a tenant moves out leaving the premises reasonably clean and tidy, the landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness and tidiness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness inside or a few weeds in the garden does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean and tidy overall.
A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning and tidying may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy. 3
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover cleaning costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Did the tenants leave the garden reasonably tidy?

The landlord provided photographs of the garden prior to the tenancy beginning, after the tenancy ended, and after she had done work on the garden.
The landlord’s photographs of the garden near the house were taken about a week after the tenancy ended.
In the photographs of the garden at the end of the tenancy, the appears reasonably tidy in those photographs in my view. The hedge is not so neatly trimmed as the landlord achieved after the tenants moved out, but the hedge was trimmed and in any event, hedge, shrub, and tree trimming is typically treated as falling within the landlord’s maintenance duties under s 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which requires the landlord to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord is aggrieved at the appearance in the garden of two large toetoe plants. The tenants say they did not plant them but nor did they weed them out. The toetoe enhanced the front of the property to my eye, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and one person’s specimen shrub is another person’s weed. It is unsurprising the tenants did not remove the toetoe. I do not consider their “failure” to do so left the garden untidy.
The landlord had taken some other garden photographs on 23 June 2025, three weeks after the tenancy ended. The grass is a little longer than at the beginning of the tenancy, but it has to be borne in mind that when the photographs were taken, the grass had three weeks’ growth since the tenancy ended. Similarly, a photograph taken a few days earlier shows kikuyu grass growing over a wooden walkway in a paddock area. Some of the growth would be due to the delay in taking the photograph and while 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2018) at
12. it probably would not be as well trimmed as at the beginning of the tenancy, I do not consider that the garden was not left reasonably cleans overall.
The landlord’s claim in respect to the garden is dismissed.

Did the tenants leave the carpets reasonably clean?

The landlord said she had to clean the premises carpet due to the effects of pet soiling. The tenants acknowledged that one of their cats got unwell and may have soiled the carpets, albeit not to the extent the landlord claimed.
The tenants had thoroughly cleaned the carpets and considered the carpets were clean. However, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the soiling had not been cleaned sufficiently to rid the carpet of pet odours.
I find this claim proven.
I order the tenants to reimburse the landlord for her carpet cleaning costs, which the landlord proved by way of invoices and also for about four hours of the landlord’s time. I consider that the total amount of $584.18 is reasonable in the circumstances. Did the tenants damage the sleepout’s carpet?
The tenants accepted that their daughter had damaged the sleepout’s carpet when using hair dye.
The landlord provided a quote to replace the damaged section of carpet including the cost of the carpet and the labour and associated costs to remove the damaged section of carpet and replace it.
It is not entirely clear that the landlord will carry out the repair at this time, but she may. Even if she does not repair the carpet, she should be compensated for the loss of value caused by the staining.
I consider it appropriate to order the tenants to pay the landlord $640.00 for the carpet damage.

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages against the tenants?

The landlord sought exemplary damages orders for the tenants keeping pets indoors in breach of the tenancy agreement, cutting a hose, damaging a wheelie bin lid, failing to report damage to barn posts, and dumping concrete in the garden.
The tenants accepted they had acquired two cats without discussion them with the landlord. The landlord later kindly allowed them to keep the cats so long as they largely lived outside when she found out about it herself.
The tenants also accepted they cut the hose because it developed a hole. They attached a new hose to the stump of the old hose but took the new section of hose with them when they moved out. When the landlord complained, they gave her a replacement hose. They denied damaging the hose reel, which they say did not work due to wear and tear.
The tenants deny damaging the wheelie bin lid. They say it was probably damaged by the wheelie bin collector – a common occurrence.
The tenants accept not informing the landlord promptly about the damage to the barn’s posts, but say they always intended to fix the damage themselves and believe they have done so.
The tenants deny dumping a chunk of concrete in the garden.
It is not necessary to discuss these allegations further because even if they were proved none of them would amount to an unlawful act under the RTA and the Tribunal can only award exemplary damages if there is an unlawful act.
The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Application fee
The tenants must reimburse the landlord for the application fee because she has substantially succeeded in her claims, and I consider that is fair and just. 4 Bond
The Tribunal will direct the Bond Centre to distribute the bond in accordance with the Tribunal’s monetary orders. Non-publication of landlord’s details
The landlord seeks an order for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 5
The landlord has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider notwithstanding the presumption of non-publication that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300262 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300262 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the garden and the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenants leave the garden reasonably tidy?

Did the tenants leave the carpets reasonably clean?

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages against the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the garden and the carpets reasonably clean and tidy?

Did the tenants leave the garden reasonably tidy?

Did the tenants leave the carpets reasonably clean?

Should the Tribunal award exemplary damages against the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions