What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5319084 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 5319084?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $205.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Oven Racks (X2: $69.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319084?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319084?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12630987-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5319084 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 5319084?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $205.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Oven Racks (X2: $69.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319084?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319084?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12630987-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

6 Bellringer Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5319084 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

6 Bellringer Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5319084 — Cleanliness | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319084 — net $657.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$402.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$205.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace oven racks (x2	$69.90	Replace oven racks (x2
Window repairs	$230.00	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$657.58
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$657.58

Claims and awards for application 5319084 — net $657.58 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $402.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $205.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace oven racks (x2

Amount: $69.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace oven racks (x2

Dismissed claims

Lightbulbs — Oven racks

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Stephanie Cassandra Witehira and Tania Lee Bell must pay [The landlord/s] $657.58 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $542.82 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 29 October 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

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

The law

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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 7 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Cleaning
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The oven is dirty. The kitchen cupboards have smear marks on them and some bench surfaces have not been wiped down. The toilet has not been cleaned and there is hair inside the laundry tub drain. There is also mould and dirt around the windowsills and what appears to be cigarette ash on the floors. Further, the carpet in one of the bedrooms is stained. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any stains to the bedroom carpet. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not leave the inside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning and carpet cleaning is granted for the following amounts: a. Cleaning: $402.00. b. Carpet cleaning: $150.00. Lawns and garden
The landlord claims the lawns were overgrown at the end of the tenancy, but did not submit any photographs of the lawns. The landlord submitted a photograph of broken glass on the ground outside the premises. Part of the lawn can be seen in the photograph however, this evidence alone is insufficient to prove the landlord’s claim that the lawns were overgrown. This is because only a very small part of the lawns can be seen in the photograph.
The landlord has not proven on the tenant left the lawns in an unreasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, their claim for compensation of $57.50 to mow the lawns is dismissed.
The landlord submitted a photograph of the driveway, which shows a large number of leaves present. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because of the leaves, which should have been raked and disposed of.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $115.00 to clear the leaves, which includes the disposal fee at the transfer station.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $115.00. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. Lock/key replacement
The landlord claims the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence and grant their claim for compensation of $205.00 to replace the keys/locks. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount. Lightbulbs
The landlord claims the light bulbs on the deck were not working and needed to be replaced at the end of the tenancy.
I consider lightbulbs to be a chattel provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant during the tenancy. Overtime, it is foreseeable that lightbulbs may run out and require replacement due to ordinary use. The tenancy was one year long. No evidence was submitted to suggest unreasonable use of the lights by the tenant. On the balance of probabilities, I find the fact that the lightbulbs on the deck needed to be replaced at the end of the tenancy to be the result of fair wear and tear. A tenant is not responsible for fair wear and tear. 8 Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Oven racks
The landlord submitted photographs of the inside of the oven taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Two racks are present at the beginning and missing at the end.
I find the oven racks to be a chattel provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant during the tenancy. I am convinced on the balance of probabilities they were not returned at the end of the tenancy by the tenant.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $69.90 to purchase two oven racks.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $69.90.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

The law

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 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a)(i). damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 9 Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. No windows are broken. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. Two windows are broken.
A comparison of the photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, convinces me on the balance of probabilities that two windows were broken during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $230.00 to repair the windows.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $230.00. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason, I have granted their request for name suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319084 — net $657.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$402.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$115.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$205.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace oven racks (x2	$69.90	Replace oven racks (x2
Window repairs	$230.00	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$657.58
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$657.58

Claims and awards for application 5319084 — net $657.58 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $402.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $150.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $205.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Replace oven racks (x2

Amount: $69.90
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace oven racks (x2

Dismissed claims

Lightbulbs — Oven racks

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Stephanie Cassandra Witehira and Tania Lee Bell must pay [The landlord/s] $657.58 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $542.82 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 29 October 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

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

The law

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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities.” 7 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Cleaning
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The oven is dirty. The kitchen cupboards have smear marks on them and some bench surfaces have not been wiped down. The toilet has not been cleaned and there is hair inside the laundry tub drain. There is also mould and dirt around the windowsills and what appears to be cigarette ash on the floors. Further, the carpet in one of the bedrooms is stained. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any stains to the bedroom carpet. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not leave the inside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning and carpet cleaning is granted for the following amounts: a. Cleaning: $402.00. b. Carpet cleaning: $150.00. Lawns and garden
The landlord claims the lawns were overgrown at the end of the tenancy, but did not submit any photographs of the lawns. The landlord submitted a photograph of broken glass on the ground outside the premises. Part of the lawn can be seen in the photograph however, this evidence alone is insufficient to prove the landlord’s claim that the lawns were overgrown. This is because only a very small part of the lawns can be seen in the photograph.
The landlord has not proven on the tenant left the lawns in an unreasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, their claim for compensation of $57.50 to mow the lawns is dismissed.
The landlord submitted a photograph of the driveway, which shows a large number of leaves present. On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant did not leave the outside of the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because of the leaves, which should have been raked and disposed of.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $115.00 to clear the leaves, which includes the disposal fee at the transfer station.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $115.00. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. Lock/key replacement
The landlord claims the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence and grant their claim for compensation of $205.00 to replace the keys/locks. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount. Lightbulbs
The landlord claims the light bulbs on the deck were not working and needed to be replaced at the end of the tenancy.
I consider lightbulbs to be a chattel provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant during the tenancy. Overtime, it is foreseeable that lightbulbs may run out and require replacement due to ordinary use. The tenancy was one year long. No evidence was submitted to suggest unreasonable use of the lights by the tenant. On the balance of probabilities, I find the fact that the lightbulbs on the deck needed to be replaced at the end of the tenancy to be the result of fair wear and tear. A tenant is not responsible for fair wear and tear. 8 Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Oven racks
The landlord submitted photographs of the inside of the oven taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Two racks are present at the beginning and missing at the end.
I find the oven racks to be a chattel provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant during the tenancy. I am convinced on the balance of probabilities they were not returned at the end of the tenancy by the tenant.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $69.90 to purchase two oven racks.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $69.90.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

The law

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 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(8)(a)(i). damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 9 Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. No windows are broken. The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. Two windows are broken.
A comparison of the photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy, convinces me on the balance of probabilities that two windows were broken during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $230.00 to repair the windows.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $230.00. Filing fee & name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason, I have granted their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319084 — Cleanliness at 6 Bellringer Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319084 — Cleanliness at 6 Bellringer Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions