What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302790 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $216.30 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5302790?

Cleaning: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $330.05 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302790?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302790?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12894533-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302790 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $216.30 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5302790?

Cleaning: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $330.05 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $200.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302790?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302790?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12894533-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302790 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302790 — net $216.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$330.05		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$86.25		Carpet Cleaning
Compensation		$200.00	Compensation
Total award	$416.30	$200.00
Net award	$216.30
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$216.30

[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $216.30 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

Name suppressions is awarded in favour of both parties.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $216.30 [The tenant/s]: $2,023.70

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants apply for compensation regarding a shattered shower door.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The Tenant’s application

The tenants claim that the shower door in one of the tenant’s ensuites shattered and was not repaired by the landlord until 26 April 2025. The tenants also claim that the shattered glass was not cleaned upon until 8 March.

The landlord claims it did everything it could to repair the door and clean away the shattered glass.

Under s 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. A landlord must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 1

The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage (see Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 2 ) Further, a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. 3 The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. 4

The premises was only two years old at the outset of the tenancy. The shower door should not have shattered. I consider that the door was not repaired within a reasonable time and award the tenants $200 as a reasonable compensation for the loss of amenity in not being able not use the shower properly.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

1 Section 45 of the RTA 2 DC Auckland CIV 2005 004 1762, at [28] 3 S 40(1)(d) of the RTA, Vu v Hutchings [2016 ] NZTT 4054247, at [13] 4 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009 085 1431, at [15]

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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.

The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Photographs shown to me indicate there was further cleaning required, as well as some carpet spot removal.

The tenant’s main complaint here was that initially they were told that the amount being sought was higher than what was eventually claimed. They claim to feel cheated by the landlord.

Although the error was upsetting for them, I find that ultimately the amount has reduced and so they have benefited. They advanced no evidence against the landlord’s assertion that cleaning was required.

The amounts ordered above are proved.

As both parties have had a measure of success I consider the filing fee should not be refunded but I do allow name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302790 — net $216.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$330.05		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$86.25		Carpet Cleaning
Compensation		$200.00	Compensation
Total award	$416.30	$200.00
Net award	$216.30
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$216.30

Order

[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $216.30 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
Name suppressions is awarded in favour of both parties.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $216.30 [The tenant/s]: $2,023.70

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants apply for compensation regarding a shattered shower door.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The Tenant’s application
The tenants claim that the shower door in one of the tenant’s ensuites shattered and was not repaired by the landlord until 26 April 2025. The tenants also claim that the shattered glass was not cleaned upon until 8 March.
The landlord claims it did everything it could to repair the door and clean away the shattered glass.
Under s 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. A landlord must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 1
The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage (see Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 2 ) Further, a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. 3 The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. 4
The premises was only two years old at the outset of the tenancy. The shower door should not have shattered. I consider that the door was not repaired within a reasonable time and award the tenants $200 as a reasonable compensation for the loss of amenity in not being able not use the shower properly.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants 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.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Photographs shown to me indicate there was further cleaning required, as well as some carpet spot removal.
The tenant’s main complaint here was that initially they were told that the amount being sought was higher than what was eventually claimed. They claim to feel cheated by the landlord.
Although the error was upsetting for them, I find that ultimately the amount has reduced and so they have benefited. They advanced no evidence against the landlord’s assertion that cleaning was required.
The amounts ordered above are proved.
As both parties have had a measure of success I consider the filing fee should not be refunded but I do allow name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302790 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302790 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions