What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317335 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 5317335?

Cleaning: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317335?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317335?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12610094-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317335 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 5317335?

Cleaning: $224.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317335?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317335?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12610094-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317335 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317335 — net $367.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$224.25	8. However the photographs provided by the landlord taken at the final inspection show rubbish was left at the property and some cleaning was required to bring…
Cleaning	$115.00	8. However the photographs provided by the landlord taken at the final inspection show rubbish was left at the property and some cleaning was required to bring…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$367.25
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$367.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and the Tenants’ names, identifying details and address of the tenancy premises.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $367.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $367.25 [The tenant/s]: $2,752.75
The claim for the plumber’s costs is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenants did not attend.
The hearing was changed from a telephone hearing to a video hearing at the request of the tenants however the tenants did not join the hearing via the teams conference link. I called the tenants twice at the start of the hearing on the cell phone number provided on the application but they did not answer.
The tenancy ended on 28 June 2025. Following the end of the tenancy the landlord claims partial refund of the bond in compensation for: a) Cleaning and rubbish removal; b) Carpet stain in the hallway; c) Plumbers cost to turn the internal water isolation valve on.
The landlord also claims reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord withdrew its claim for wall damage caused by the removal of stickers on walls.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I have considered the tenants’ written response that only light cleaning tasks such as wiping the kitchen down, vacuuming and minor rubbish removal was needed, and that they consider they left the property reasonably clean and tidy.
However the photographs provided by the landlord taken at the final inspection show rubbish was left at the property and some cleaning was required to bring it to the condition required by the RTA. The amount claimed and awarded ($115.00) reflects that there was only a small amount of work needed to bring it to the standard required. The amount ordered is proven.

Did the tenant damage the carpet?

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 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.
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 tenants caused damage to the carpet in the hallway as they spilt bleach on the carpet which has permanently marked the carpet.
The tenants’ written response is that the bleach spill was not intentional or reckless, that the carpet was not pristine when they moved into the premises as it had existing stains in several colours. The tenants’ view is that over time carpets accumulate signs of use and that the bleach spill falls within reasonable wear and tear of the carpet.
I do not agree with the tenants’ view. I find that when using bleach around carpet a high degree of care is needed as a spill will result in colour being removed from the carpet and a permanent discolouration. In addition the bleach is likely to cause damage to the underlay which will reduce the life of the carpet. I find the bleach spill was more likely than not caused carelessly 1 by the tenants.
I find the bleach stain has accelerated the need to replace the carpet and that it is reasonable to award the amount claimed ($224.25) in compensation of that acceleration.
I note that the landlord’s application claims $224.25 in compensation for the bleach stain based on the cost to spot clean the stain ($195.00+gst). After filing the claim, the landlord realised that bleach cannot be “cleaned” and that the carpet is damaged. The day before the hearing the landlord sought to increase its claim to $550.00, being the landlord’s insurance excess.
As explained at the hearing, if a claim is to be amended, including the amount being claimed, the other party is entitled to reasonable notice of the amendment. 1 The onus of proof in civil matters such as claims in the tenancy Tribunal, is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, what is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”. The tenants were not given reasonable notice and the claim is considered based on the amount claimed in the application. Is the landlord entitled to the plumber’s cost to attend the property to turn off the internal water valve?
After the tenants moved out there was no water in the premises. The landlord checked the mains water at the meter and it was on. A plumber was arranged to come to the property as the landlord could not work out why there was no water.
The plumber turned on the water isolation valve that was inside the wall in the garage, which the tenants had turned off. The landlord seeks the cost invoiced by the plumber ($138.00).
The tenants’ written response to this issue is that they turned the water inlet valve off as a precaution to prevent leaks or flooding. Their view is that this was a responsible action for them to take. The tenants say this was not a maintenance issue or damamge caused by them, and that the matter would have been resolved had the landlord called them before contacting the plumber.
I agree with the tenants’ view on this. I am satisfied that the landlord needs to know how services, such as water, are supplied to premises. The property manager should have been made aware by the owner of the internal water isolation valve, where it as located and how it worked.
I find it is reasonable for the tenants to have turned the water off. I also find it reasonable that the landlord should have contacted the tenants to check if they knew why water was not available inside the house before calling the plumber.
In any event I find the tenants have not caused damage and have not breached any of their obligations under the RTA or the tenancy agreement. I note the landlord has raised s 40(1)(d) in relation to this issue and submitted that under that subsection tenants must not interfere with the supply of services to the premises. I do not find that is the correct interpretation or meaning of the obligation tenants have under that subsection. Section 40(1)(d) states: (1) The tenant shall - (d) notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs;
As stated above this was not a situation where the premises were damaged or a repair was needed. Other matters:
The bond: The bond is split between the landlord and the tenant as shown in the order above.
Filing Fee: As the landlord has been mainly successful in its claim I reimburse the filing fee.
Suppression: The landlord has applied for suppression. As the successful party the landlord is entitled to suppression of its name and its application is granted.
The Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names of the tenants. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5317335 — net $367.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$224.25	8. However the photographs provided by the landlord taken at the final inspection show rubbish was left at the property and some cleaning was required to bring…
Cleaning	$115.00	8. However the photographs provided by the landlord taken at the final inspection show rubbish was left at the property and some cleaning was required to bring…
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$367.25
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$367.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and the Tenants’ names, identifying details and address of the tenancy premises.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $367.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $367.25 [The tenant/s]: $2,752.75
The claim for the plumber’s costs is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenants did not attend.
The hearing was changed from a telephone hearing to a video hearing at the request of the tenants however the tenants did not join the hearing via the teams conference link. I called the tenants twice at the start of the hearing on the cell phone number provided on the application but they did not answer.
The tenancy ended on 28 June 2025. Following the end of the tenancy the landlord claims partial refund of the bond in compensation for: a) Cleaning and rubbish removal; b) Carpet stain in the hallway; c) Plumbers cost to turn the internal water isolation valve on.
The landlord also claims reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord withdrew its claim for wall damage caused by the removal of stickers on walls.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I have considered the tenants’ written response that only light cleaning tasks such as wiping the kitchen down, vacuuming and minor rubbish removal was needed, and that they consider they left the property reasonably clean and tidy.
However the photographs provided by the landlord taken at the final inspection show rubbish was left at the property and some cleaning was required to bring it to the condition required by the RTA. The amount claimed and awarded ($115.00) reflects that there was only a small amount of work needed to bring it to the standard required. The amount ordered is proven.

Did the tenant damage the carpet?

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 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.
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 tenants caused damage to the carpet in the hallway as they spilt bleach on the carpet which has permanently marked the carpet.
The tenants’ written response is that the bleach spill was not intentional or reckless, that the carpet was not pristine when they moved into the premises as it had existing stains in several colours. The tenants’ view is that over time carpets accumulate signs of use and that the bleach spill falls within reasonable wear and tear of the carpet.
I do not agree with the tenants’ view. I find that when using bleach around carpet a high degree of care is needed as a spill will result in colour being removed from the carpet and a permanent discolouration. In addition the bleach is likely to cause damage to the underlay which will reduce the life of the carpet. I find the bleach spill was more likely than not caused carelessly 1 by the tenants.
I find the bleach stain has accelerated the need to replace the carpet and that it is reasonable to award the amount claimed ($224.25) in compensation of that acceleration.
I note that the landlord’s application claims $224.25 in compensation for the bleach stain based on the cost to spot clean the stain ($195.00+gst). After filing the claim, the landlord realised that bleach cannot be “cleaned” and that the carpet is damaged. The day before the hearing the landlord sought to increase its claim to $550.00, being the landlord’s insurance excess.
As explained at the hearing, if a claim is to be amended, including the amount being claimed, the other party is entitled to reasonable notice of the amendment. 1 The onus of proof in civil matters such as claims in the tenancy Tribunal, is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, what is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”. The tenants were not given reasonable notice and the claim is considered based on the amount claimed in the application. Is the landlord entitled to the plumber’s cost to attend the property to turn off the internal water valve?
After the tenants moved out there was no water in the premises. The landlord checked the mains water at the meter and it was on. A plumber was arranged to come to the property as the landlord could not work out why there was no water.
The plumber turned on the water isolation valve that was inside the wall in the garage, which the tenants had turned off. The landlord seeks the cost invoiced by the plumber ($138.00).
The tenants’ written response to this issue is that they turned the water inlet valve off as a precaution to prevent leaks or flooding. Their view is that this was a responsible action for them to take. The tenants say this was not a maintenance issue or damamge caused by them, and that the matter would have been resolved had the landlord called them before contacting the plumber.
I agree with the tenants’ view on this. I am satisfied that the landlord needs to know how services, such as water, are supplied to premises. The property manager should have been made aware by the owner of the internal water isolation valve, where it as located and how it worked.
I find it is reasonable for the tenants to have turned the water off. I also find it reasonable that the landlord should have contacted the tenants to check if they knew why water was not available inside the house before calling the plumber.
In any event I find the tenants have not caused damage and have not breached any of their obligations under the RTA or the tenancy agreement. I note the landlord has raised s 40(1)(d) in relation to this issue and submitted that under that subsection tenants must not interfere with the supply of services to the premises. I do not find that is the correct interpretation or meaning of the obligation tenants have under that subsection. Section 40(1)(d) states: (1) The tenant shall - (d) notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs;
As stated above this was not a situation where the premises were damaged or a repair was needed. Other matters:
The bond: The bond is split between the landlord and the tenant as shown in the order above.
Filing Fee: As the landlord has been mainly successful in its claim I reimburse the filing fee.
Suppression: The landlord has applied for suppression. As the successful party the landlord is entitled to suppression of its name and its application is granted.
The Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names of the tenants. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317335 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317335 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish?

Did the tenant damage the carpet?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish?

Did the tenant damage the carpet?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions