What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318404 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/As

How much money was awarded in case 5318404?

Cleaning: $425.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.31 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $310.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318404?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12636130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318404 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/As

How much money was awarded in case 5318404?

Cleaning: $425.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $175.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.31 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $780.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $310.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318404?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Rent arrears, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12636130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

44A Collins Street, Hawera, Hawera 4610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318404 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318404 — net $608.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 July 2025	$780.00	Rent arrears to 7 July 2025
Rubbish removal	$310.50	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$250.31	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: Clean oven and kitchen areas	$175.00	Cleaning: Clean oven and kitchen areas
Carpet Cleaning: All carpeted areas	$425.00	Carpet Cleaning: All carpeted areas
Cleaning: Stickers, wall scuffs and skirting in lounge	$200.00	Cleaning: Stickers, wall scuffs and skirting in lounge
Repairs: Wall and door repair	$280.00	Repairs: Wall and door repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$608.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$608.81

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/As Bayleys As Agent For Jane & Roger Puckey & Brockecsby $608.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (6150094-011) to Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/As Bayleys As Agent For Jane & Roger Puckey & Brockecsby immediately.
The landlord’s claim to repair damage to a hinge in the kitchen is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

I am satisfied that that the tenancy ended on 7 July 2025. The landlord provided emails with the tenant and rent records which prove the amount owing at 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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys.
I am satisfied that the tenant was provided with a front and back door keys at the start of the tenancy but did not return them when the tenancy ended. The landlord had the locks changed at a cost of $250.31 and provided evidence of this in the form of an invoice. This is a reasonable sum to replace locks. The sum ordered is proven.
The tenant left a number of larger and smaller items at the premises including mattresses and stools and pallets. These were disposed of by a tradesperson and the landlord paid $310.50 for this. I consider this sum to be reasonable given the nature of the rubbish evidenced. The claim is proven.
The landlord claims cleaning costs of $261.98 for the cleaning of the oven, oven top and other limited aspects of the kitchen. Given the fact that this work involved cleaning an oven, which was far from being in a reasonable state, plus some other smaller cleaning tasks within the kitchen (e.g. wiping the bench, cleaning the sink and floor) I consider the sum of $175 as reasonable and award this.
The landlord has claimed $736 for cleaning costs, specifically for cleaning the walls, removing stickers, and cleaning the skirting boards in one room. However, tenants are not required to undertake rigorous cleaning of walls and ceilings beyond leaving the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
In this case, the scuff marks on the walls were more than minor, and the presence of stickers or decals on the doors and walls was inappropriate. The skirting boards in the room referred to should also have been wiped, as they had an obvious visible residue on them (although I find that the evidence did not clearly establish what the substance was).
I note that the pre-tenancy inspection recorded some scuffing and marks on the walls. However, I find that the condition at the end of the tenancy was more extensive than what was originally noted. The landlord has since repainted the walls.
Based on the evidence presented, I find the amount claimed to be excessive and unreasonable. It is more likely than not that the level of cleaning undertaken exceeded what a tenant is reasonably expected to perform. Accordingly, I award the sum of $200 for this work.
I accept that the carpets were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. There was extensive marking evidenced by photographs. The sum claimed is reasonable and I award this.

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.
Betterment and depreciation must be considered. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant factors.
The landlord says that a door and a wall were damaged. The holes are about the size of a baseball. The tenant has made an effort to fill these holes but I accept that they are not fixed to a reasonable standard.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider the damage most likely to be intentional damage.
The hole in the wall has been patched and patch painted. The evidence is that the hole in the door was patched and then the door painted. The sum claimed for remedying both holes is $333.50.
I award the landlord $280 for this damage. I have reduced the sum claimed to take into account depreciation. This is because the landlord could not say when the door was last painted, but the pre-tenancy inspection photographs show a door in reasonably good condition. A deduction should be made for betterment (because a newly painted door is better than a door that was painted an indeterminate time ago) and I consider this sum to be fair. I have made no further deduction in relation to the painting of the wall as the evidence presented was that this was only patch painted and I therefore consider the landlord has had no benefit here.
The landlord says a hinge was broken in the kitchen. I consider this to be fair wear and tear. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5318404 — net $608.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 July 2025	$780.00	Rent arrears to 7 July 2025
Rubbish removal	$310.50	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$250.31	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: Clean oven and kitchen areas	$175.00	Cleaning: Clean oven and kitchen areas
Carpet Cleaning: All carpeted areas	$425.00	Carpet Cleaning: All carpeted areas
Cleaning: Stickers, wall scuffs and skirting in lounge	$200.00	Cleaning: Stickers, wall scuffs and skirting in lounge
Repairs: Wall and door repair	$280.00	Repairs: Wall and door repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$608.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$608.81

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/As Bayleys As Agent For Jane & Roger Puckey & Brockecsby $608.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (6150094-011) to Success Realty Taranaki Limited T/As Bayleys As Agent For Jane & Roger Puckey & Brockecsby immediately.
The landlord’s claim to repair damage to a hinge in the kitchen is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

I am satisfied that that the tenancy ended on 7 July 2025. The landlord provided emails with the tenant and rent records which prove the amount owing at 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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys.
I am satisfied that the tenant was provided with a front and back door keys at the start of the tenancy but did not return them when the tenancy ended. The landlord had the locks changed at a cost of $250.31 and provided evidence of this in the form of an invoice. This is a reasonable sum to replace locks. The sum ordered is proven.
The tenant left a number of larger and smaller items at the premises including mattresses and stools and pallets. These were disposed of by a tradesperson and the landlord paid $310.50 for this. I consider this sum to be reasonable given the nature of the rubbish evidenced. The claim is proven.
The landlord claims cleaning costs of $261.98 for the cleaning of the oven, oven top and other limited aspects of the kitchen. Given the fact that this work involved cleaning an oven, which was far from being in a reasonable state, plus some other smaller cleaning tasks within the kitchen (e.g. wiping the bench, cleaning the sink and floor) I consider the sum of $175 as reasonable and award this.
The landlord has claimed $736 for cleaning costs, specifically for cleaning the walls, removing stickers, and cleaning the skirting boards in one room. However, tenants are not required to undertake rigorous cleaning of walls and ceilings beyond leaving the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
In this case, the scuff marks on the walls were more than minor, and the presence of stickers or decals on the doors and walls was inappropriate. The skirting boards in the room referred to should also have been wiped, as they had an obvious visible residue on them (although I find that the evidence did not clearly establish what the substance was).
I note that the pre-tenancy inspection recorded some scuffing and marks on the walls. However, I find that the condition at the end of the tenancy was more extensive than what was originally noted. The landlord has since repainted the walls.
Based on the evidence presented, I find the amount claimed to be excessive and unreasonable. It is more likely than not that the level of cleaning undertaken exceeded what a tenant is reasonably expected to perform. Accordingly, I award the sum of $200 for this work.
I accept that the carpets were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. There was extensive marking evidenced by photographs. The sum claimed is reasonable and I award this.

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.
Betterment and depreciation must be considered. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan are relevant factors.
The landlord says that a door and a wall were damaged. The holes are about the size of a baseball. The tenant has made an effort to fill these holes but I accept that they are not fixed to a reasonable standard.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider the damage most likely to be intentional damage.
The hole in the wall has been patched and patch painted. The evidence is that the hole in the door was patched and then the door painted. The sum claimed for remedying both holes is $333.50.
I award the landlord $280 for this damage. I have reduced the sum claimed to take into account depreciation. This is because the landlord could not say when the door was last painted, but the pre-tenancy inspection photographs show a door in reasonably good condition. A deduction should be made for betterment (because a newly painted door is better than a door that was painted an indeterminate time ago) and I consider this sum to be fair. I have made no further deduction in relation to the painting of the wall as the evidence presented was that this was only patch painted and I therefore consider the landlord has had no benefit here.
The landlord says a hinge was broken in the kitchen. I consider this to be fair wear and tear. This part of the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318404 — Cleanliness at 44A Collins Street, Hawera, Hawera 4610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318404 — Cleanliness at 44A Collins Street, Hawera, Hawera 4610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.