How much money was awarded in case 5312559?

Cleaning: $297.36 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $24.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312559?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12396756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5312559?

Cleaning: $297.36 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $24.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5312559?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5312559?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12396756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

28 Douglas Street, Allanton, RD 2, Mosgiel 9092 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5312559 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5312559 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312559 — net $321.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning as agreed	$297.36	Oven/stove cleaning as agreed
Replacement mattress protector	$24.00	Replacement mattress protector
Net award	$321.36
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$321.36

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Marie Mackay $321.36 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The claim by the landlord for further compensation of $1,661.00 is dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Marie Mackay: $321.36 [The tenant/s]: $2,798.64

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.

The tenancy was for a fixed term from 19/5/2024 to 18/5/2025 at $780.00 per week rent.

The tenant vacated on 21/6/2025.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claimed compensation of $821.36 as follows: a. $350.00 cleaning by the owner, b. $24.00 replacement mattress protector, c. $297.36 oven cleaning. d. $150.00 cleaning bedroom curtains.

In support of the claim the landlord provided entry and exit inspection reports dated 19/5/2024 and 22/6/2025 respectively; invoices, estimates and a statement from the owner about the cleaning she undertook.

The tenant agreed the oven had not been cleaned but disputed the other claims.

In support of their position the tenant provided a video taken on 21/6/2025 showing the state of the premises when they vacated.

Apart from the oven, I am not persuaded by the evidence provided by the landlord that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The video evidence of the tenant confirms the premises were reasonably clean and tidy on vacation.

In addition, I do not consider the claim for the cleaning of the bedroom curtains is reasonable in the circumstances outlined because the mechanical build up of dust and or dirt trapped between the track and curtain suggests a long term process, not necessarily just confined to this tenancy.

However, and despite the lack of the chattels list I accept the evidence from the entry inspection report that there was a mattress protector in one bedroom which was missing at the end of the tenancy.

Awards have been made from the bond for the oven cleaning and mattress protector.

The claim for further compensation of $500.00 fails.

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.

The landlord claimed compensation of $1,161.00 as follows: a. $961.00 for replacement of a lounge curtain, b. $200.00 for repairs to a leather couch.

In support of the claim the landlord provided exit photographs and quotes.

The landlord’s insurance excess exceeded the amounts claimed.

There was no suggestion from the landlord that the damage was other than careless.

While the tenant agreed the curtains had continued to fray during the tenancy he submitted that this was due to incorrect installation because the curtains were too long and dragged on the floor.

In contrast the tenant submitted that the curtains of the same material on the opposite window which did not touch the floor had not frayed.

Further the tenant believed the cup marks on the couch were wear and tear because of the flat nature of the arm rests which allowed cups to be positioned there.

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.

I am satisfied that damage was caused during the tenancy to one set of lounge curtains and one arm of a leather couch.

However, I am persuaded by the evidence of the tenant that the damage is fair wear and tear and particularly for the couch to be expected when including chattels in a tenancy.

While some extra fraying occurred to the curtain during the tenancy I consider this was also wear and tear due to the way in which the curtains were hanging.

I have declined to award a filing fee because the landlord was only partly successful with the claim and that mostly due to the agreement of the tenant.

Suppression is not available to the landlord because they were not largely successful with the proceedings.

As the tenant was largely successful in receiving the majority of the bond, I have granted name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5312559 — net $321.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning as agreed	$297.36	Oven/stove cleaning as agreed
Replacement mattress protector	$24.00	Replacement mattress protector
Net award	$321.36
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$321.36