What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5305413 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 5305413?

Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305413?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12614670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5305413 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 5305413?

Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305413?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12614670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5305413 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5305413 — net $128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$700.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$128.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$128.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $128.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord says that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and that they were required to engage a cleaner as a result. The invoice shows that cleaning was carried out to the ceiling and walls, internal areas and the windows at the total cost of $1,110.90. The landlord has also provided some photographs in support of this claim.
The tenant disputes that the property required additional cleaning and says that nothing was raised when both parties were at the property after they had moved out, and that they had a cleaner in the property for at least a day.
On review of the evidence, I consider that although some cleaning was done, there was some additional cleaning required to reach the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. I am not convinced however, that all the cleaning contained in the cleaning invoice was required to reach this standard and accordingly have reduced the amount awarded to $700.00.
The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims for damage caused to the sliding door at the property requiring repairs including replacing the sliding rollers and fitting a new door lock and that it may have been caused by a marble being placed into the ranch slider. The landlord says this was caused by the tenant during the tenancy and claims for the invoiced repair costs of $582.28.
The tenant disputes this and says that they hardly used the sliding door due to it playing up during the tenancy, but that they did not cause this damage. The tenant says that any alleged damage was wear and tear that was reasonable after a 14-year tenancy. The tenant also raised other issues with a lack of maintenance to the property, however, since there was no formal application, I have not considered these further.
On review, I consider that there is insufficient evidence to show that it is more likely that not that the tenant caused damage to the sliding door during the tenancy, and this claim must therefore be dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. As both parties have had some level of success, I have granted name suppression to both the landlord and the tenant. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 24 October 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5305413 — net $128.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$700.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$128.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$128.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $128.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord says that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and that they were required to engage a cleaner as a result. The invoice shows that cleaning was carried out to the ceiling and walls, internal areas and the windows at the total cost of $1,110.90. The landlord has also provided some photographs in support of this claim.
The tenant disputes that the property required additional cleaning and says that nothing was raised when both parties were at the property after they had moved out, and that they had a cleaner in the property for at least a day.
On review of the evidence, I consider that although some cleaning was done, there was some additional cleaning required to reach the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. I am not convinced however, that all the cleaning contained in the cleaning invoice was required to reach this standard and accordingly have reduced the amount awarded to $700.00.
The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims for damage caused to the sliding door at the property requiring repairs including replacing the sliding rollers and fitting a new door lock and that it may have been caused by a marble being placed into the ranch slider. The landlord says this was caused by the tenant during the tenancy and claims for the invoiced repair costs of $582.28.
The tenant disputes this and says that they hardly used the sliding door due to it playing up during the tenancy, but that they did not cause this damage. The tenant says that any alleged damage was wear and tear that was reasonable after a 14-year tenancy. The tenant also raised other issues with a lack of maintenance to the property, however, since there was no formal application, I have not considered these further.
On review, I consider that there is insufficient evidence to show that it is more likely that not that the tenant caused damage to the sliding door during the tenancy, and this claim must therefore be dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. As both parties have had some level of success, I have granted name suppression to both the landlord and the tenant. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 24 October 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5305413 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5305413 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions