What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5311280 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 5311280?

Break Lease Expenses: $593.97 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $2,785.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5311280?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5311280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12696300-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5311280 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 5311280?

Break Lease Expenses: $593.97 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $2,785.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5311280?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5311280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12696300-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

43B Cantora Avenue, Northpark, Auckland 2013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5311280 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5311280 — net $2,899.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 19 August 2025	$2,785.71		Rent to 19 August 2025
Break lease expenses	$593.97		Break lease expenses
Compensation for cleaning		$480.00	Compensation for cleaning
Total award	$3,379.68	$480.00
Net award	$2,899.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,899.68

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Lin, Minquan Jimmy: $2,899.68 [The tenant/s]: $220.32

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The tenant applied to be released from a fixed-term tenancy and for payment of the bond.
The landlord applied for marketing costs, the bond, and rent. Background
Briefly, this is as follows: • The tenant viewed the property on 1 July 2025. • On 8 July 2025 the parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 26 July 2025 to 25 July 2026 at a rent of $750.00. • Commercial cleaning was performed at the premises. • The tenant viewed the property again on 12 July 2025. • On 14 July 2025 the tenant purported to cancel the agreement due to issues with cleaning. • The landlord commenced readvertising on 14 July 2025. • There were 30 enquiries, 3 viewings and 1 application for a tenancy of the premises. The new tenancy was signed on 29 July 2025 with a start date of 20 August 2025. Relevant Law
Under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 a contract may be cancelled for repudiation, breach of an essential term, or where the breach substantially affects the benefit or burden of the contract.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make any order the Courts could make under any legislation or rule of law relating to contracts (Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) section 78(1)(h)). Analysis
The tenant said that, at the second viewing on 12 July 2025, there was a “persistent” odour from the carpets, despite professional cleaning having been performed. The tenant said there was dirt and pet hair in the tracks of the sliding doors. The tenant expressed concern for his young daughter and said that he could not pay rent for premises which did not meet basic standards of health and cleanliness.
There were additional concerns, including mould on windows and tracks, a lack of thorough cleaning in the garage, dirt build-up in the heat pump, and dirty bathroom vents. The tenant says that, had all cleaning-related concerns been addressed by the landlord, they would have proceeded with the tenancy.
Publicly available information indicates that the premises were built in 1996. The feedback from viewings was that the premises were looking old and there were some carpet stains. The photographs taken by the landlord on 17 July 2025 appear to show a property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, albeit the carpet did have some stains and the feedback from the viewings is consistent with the pictures. The garage floor looks like it needed brushing and mopping.
The main issue the tenant had was with the condition of the carpet and the tracks of the ranch slider doors. At the viewing on 12 July 2025, the tenants said they would clean these themselves. That was because they understood these items were not normally included in commercial cleaning. The landlord said it would cost about $120.00 plus GST to change the heat pump filters, the carpet could be cleaned again for about $150.00-180.00 plus GST and commercial cleaners charge $40.00 to $50.00 per hour.
In my view, the issues identified by the tenant could have been addressed for a few hundred dollars. The tenant could, if necessary, have served a notice to remedy on the landlord, pursuant to section 56 of the Act, to compel further cleaning. If not remedied by the landlord, the tenant could have applied to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy. While the tenant raised cleaning as an issue at both viewings, he was prepared to sign the tenancy agreement and paid the advance rent and the bond. In the circumstances it does not appear to have been an essential term of the contract that the premises were reasonably clean, so that any departure from this standard, however minor, would justify cancellation. Only a serious departure supported cancellation.
I find that the tenant was not entitled to cancel the contract. The premises were reasonably clean overall and failed to meet the required standard in several relatively minor ways. The most serious issue was probably the condition of the carpet, which was said to smell, but this could probably have been remedied. At the same time, I find that the landlord breached their obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
I consider the following remedial expenses should be deducted from sums due to the landlord because they reflect the tenant’s loss of bargain, i.e., the difference between the cleanliness of the premises he was entitled to and its actual condition: Heat pump clean$140.00 Carpet clean$220.00 Ranch slider tracks clean$60.00 Garage tidy up$60.00 Total$480
The landlord explained the marketing process. I am satisfied that the landlord acted promptly and took all reasonable steps to find a new tenant and to mitigate the landlord’s loss. I find that the landlord is entitled to rent for the duration of the fixed term tenancy until it ended on 19 August 2025, an award of $2,785.71.
The tenant did not dispute liability for the “break lease” costs. These are recoverable pursuant to section 44A of the Act. The tenant was provided with an itemised invoice and a schedule explaining how the costs are calculated. I award the expenses claimed in the sum of $593.97. Filing Fee and Suppression
Both parties have had some success. I consider it is appropriate for them to bear their own costs.
The tenants requested name suppression. This is granted. The tenant made a difficult decision for genuine reasons which the Tribunal, with the great benefit of hindsight, has found was not available. The tenants’ privacy interest outweighs any public interest in their conduct.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5311280 — net $2,899.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 19 August 2025	$2,785.71		Rent to 19 August 2025
Break lease expenses	$593.97		Break lease expenses
Compensation for cleaning		$480.00	Compensation for cleaning
Total award	$3,379.68	$480.00
Net award	$2,899.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,899.68

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited As Agent For Lin, Minquan Jimmy: $2,899.68 [The tenant/s]: $220.32

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today.
The tenant applied to be released from a fixed-term tenancy and for payment of the bond.
The landlord applied for marketing costs, the bond, and rent. Background
Briefly, this is as follows: • The tenant viewed the property on 1 July 2025. • On 8 July 2025 the parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 26 July 2025 to 25 July 2026 at a rent of $750.00. • Commercial cleaning was performed at the premises. • The tenant viewed the property again on 12 July 2025. • On 14 July 2025 the tenant purported to cancel the agreement due to issues with cleaning. • The landlord commenced readvertising on 14 July 2025. • There were 30 enquiries, 3 viewings and 1 application for a tenancy of the premises. The new tenancy was signed on 29 July 2025 with a start date of 20 August 2025. Relevant Law
Under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 a contract may be cancelled for repudiation, breach of an essential term, or where the breach substantially affects the benefit or burden of the contract.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make any order the Courts could make under any legislation or rule of law relating to contracts (Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) section 78(1)(h)). Analysis
The tenant said that, at the second viewing on 12 July 2025, there was a “persistent” odour from the carpets, despite professional cleaning having been performed. The tenant said there was dirt and pet hair in the tracks of the sliding doors. The tenant expressed concern for his young daughter and said that he could not pay rent for premises which did not meet basic standards of health and cleanliness.
There were additional concerns, including mould on windows and tracks, a lack of thorough cleaning in the garage, dirt build-up in the heat pump, and dirty bathroom vents. The tenant says that, had all cleaning-related concerns been addressed by the landlord, they would have proceeded with the tenancy.
Publicly available information indicates that the premises were built in 1996. The feedback from viewings was that the premises were looking old and there were some carpet stains. The photographs taken by the landlord on 17 July 2025 appear to show a property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, albeit the carpet did have some stains and the feedback from the viewings is consistent with the pictures. The garage floor looks like it needed brushing and mopping.
The main issue the tenant had was with the condition of the carpet and the tracks of the ranch slider doors. At the viewing on 12 July 2025, the tenants said they would clean these themselves. That was because they understood these items were not normally included in commercial cleaning. The landlord said it would cost about $120.00 plus GST to change the heat pump filters, the carpet could be cleaned again for about $150.00-180.00 plus GST and commercial cleaners charge $40.00 to $50.00 per hour.
In my view, the issues identified by the tenant could have been addressed for a few hundred dollars. The tenant could, if necessary, have served a notice to remedy on the landlord, pursuant to section 56 of the Act, to compel further cleaning. If not remedied by the landlord, the tenant could have applied to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy. While the tenant raised cleaning as an issue at both viewings, he was prepared to sign the tenancy agreement and paid the advance rent and the bond. In the circumstances it does not appear to have been an essential term of the contract that the premises were reasonably clean, so that any departure from this standard, however minor, would justify cancellation. Only a serious departure supported cancellation.
I find that the tenant was not entitled to cancel the contract. The premises were reasonably clean overall and failed to meet the required standard in several relatively minor ways. The most serious issue was probably the condition of the carpet, which was said to smell, but this could probably have been remedied. At the same time, I find that the landlord breached their obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness.
I consider the following remedial expenses should be deducted from sums due to the landlord because they reflect the tenant’s loss of bargain, i.e., the difference between the cleanliness of the premises he was entitled to and its actual condition: Heat pump clean$140.00 Carpet clean$220.00 Ranch slider tracks clean$60.00 Garage tidy up$60.00 Total$480
The landlord explained the marketing process. I am satisfied that the landlord acted promptly and took all reasonable steps to find a new tenant and to mitigate the landlord’s loss. I find that the landlord is entitled to rent for the duration of the fixed term tenancy until it ended on 19 August 2025, an award of $2,785.71.
The tenant did not dispute liability for the “break lease” costs. These are recoverable pursuant to section 44A of the Act. The tenant was provided with an itemised invoice and a schedule explaining how the costs are calculated. I award the expenses claimed in the sum of $593.97. Filing Fee and Suppression
Both parties have had some success. I consider it is appropriate for them to bear their own costs.
The tenants requested name suppression. This is granted. The tenant made a difficult decision for genuine reasons which the Tribunal, with the great benefit of hindsight, has found was not available. The tenants’ privacy interest outweighs any public interest in their conduct.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5311280 — Cleanliness at 43B Cantora Avenue, Northpark, Auckland 2013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5311280 — Cleanliness at 43B Cantora Avenue, Northpark, Auckland 2013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions