What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322919 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5322919?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $728.57 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $497.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322919?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322919?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13532210-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322919 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5322919?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $728.57 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $497.38 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322919?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322919?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13532210-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5322919 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322919 — net $847.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$500.00		Cleaning
Garden work	$299.00		Garden work
Wall repairs	$497.38		Wall repairs
Window cleaning	$280.00		Window cleaning
Rent repayment – invalid notice 28/11/24 – 9/3/25		$728.57	Rent repayment – invalid notice 28/11/24 – 9/3/25
Total award	$1,576.38	$728.57
Net award	$847.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$847.81

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlords] $847.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams by video.
Mr [tenant’s surname] and Ms [landlord’s surname] attended the hearing.
A second tenant was originally named. They are removed as a party by consent.
The tenancy began on 15 December 2020 and ended on 9 March 2025.
The trustees apply for compensation for costs they incurred to clean and repair the premises. The hearing today included rehearing the landlords’ claim decided in the Tribunal’s original decision dated 6 March 2026.
The tenant claims the landlords’ rent increases were unlawful and invalid and that the landlords harassed him during the proceedings. The Tribunal had not yet determined the tenant’s claim. Is the tenant liable for the landlords’ costs to clean and tidy the premises?
When the tenancy ends, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, commercially clean, or hotel standard. Even where the tenant leaves the premises reasonably clean, the landlord may still have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness do not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall. A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy.
The onus for establishing the claim sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii).
The landlords submitted about nine photographs of selected parts of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlords did not submit photographs from the commencement of the tenancy. However, the tenant accepted that the landlords provided the premises in a reasonably clean state.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not leave the premises (including the garden) reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish. However, the photographs do not show uncleanliness to justify the cleaning invoice of $695.75, bearing in mind that the standard is only “reasonably clean and tidy”. I find the tenant’s liability for the invoice is limited to $500.00.
The landlords have otherwise proved their losses as set out in the table above for cleaning, garden work, and window cleaning.

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the premises?

During the tenancy, the tenant’s flatmate or a person unknown altered the living room’s paintwork. The paintwork created triangular sections of slightly different coloured paint on the walls. The paintwork was neatly done but would not be to many people’s liking.
The painting alteration is damage to the premises, occurred during the tenancy, and is more than fair wear and tear. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission so the tenant is liable for his flatmate’s actions. 2 The tenant or an invitee must have executed the painting carefully and deliberately. Therefore, the painter caused the damage intentionally.
The tenant is liable to the landlords for the damage. However, the premises’ paintwork was near due for repainting anyway. The depreciation of the paintwork and the betterment the landlord receives from having brand new paintwork in consequence of the repair must be factored in. I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord for 50 percent of the cost of the painting repair work.
The toilets needed their inlet valves replaced. That was due to fair wear and tear. The tenant is not liable for the cost to fix the toilets. Is the tenant liable for the landlord’s rent loss?
The landlords claim for lost rent for the period it took to restore the premises. 2 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, 49B.
The cleaning, tidying and repairs required were of a routine nature. Landlords can expect there to be a break between tenancies for cleaning, maintenance, and the like on at least some occasions.
It would have been better if the tenant had reported the toilets issues earlier so the landlords could have addressed the problems prior to reletting; and plastering and painting is always likely to take more than a day or two even once a contractor is engaged. Nonetheless, I do not consider the delay between tenancies warrants the Tribunal finding the tenant liable for the landlords losing rent while the landlords’ contracts completed the required routine cleaning and repairs.
This claim is dismissed. Were the landlords’ rent increases unlawful?
Landlords must give tenants 60 days’ notice in writing of any rent increase. 3
The landlords’ most recent notice of rent increase given on 6 November 2024 gave the tenant less than 60 days’ notice. Therefore, the notice did not comply with the legal requirements for a rent increase and is invalid.
The landlords must reimburse the tenant $728.57 for the additional rent he paid in reliance on the invalid notice.
The tenant submitted the landlords’ rent increase of about two years earlier must also be non-compliant for similar reasons. However, he did not provide a copy of the notice nor even basic evidence such as the date when the rent had increased.
There is a lack of evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the earlier rent increase was unlawful. It is dismissed.

Did the landlords harass the tenant?

The tenant claims the landlord harassed him in the earlier course of the proceedings.
This claim cannot be sustained because s 38(2) of the Act only applies where there is an “interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant”. 4
The tenancy had ended prior to these events. 3 RTA s 24. 4
This claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of his name and identifying details. The landlords do not oppose non-publication.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest of justified by the tenant’s conduct. The tenancy address and landlords’ details are suppressed to protect the non-publication of the tenant’s details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5322919 — net $847.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$500.00		Cleaning
Garden work	$299.00		Garden work
Wall repairs	$497.38		Wall repairs
Window cleaning	$280.00		Window cleaning
Rent repayment – invalid notice 28/11/24 – 9/3/25		$728.57	Rent repayment – invalid notice 28/11/24 – 9/3/25
Total award	$1,576.38	$728.57
Net award	$847.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$847.81

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlords] $847.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams by video.
Mr [tenant’s surname] and Ms [landlord’s surname] attended the hearing.
A second tenant was originally named. They are removed as a party by consent.
The tenancy began on 15 December 2020 and ended on 9 March 2025.
The trustees apply for compensation for costs they incurred to clean and repair the premises. The hearing today included rehearing the landlords’ claim decided in the Tribunal’s original decision dated 6 March 2026.
The tenant claims the landlords’ rent increases were unlawful and invalid and that the landlords harassed him during the proceedings. The Tribunal had not yet determined the tenant’s claim. Is the tenant liable for the landlords’ costs to clean and tidy the premises?
When the tenancy ends, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
“Reasonably clean” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, commercially clean, or hotel standard. Even where the tenant leaves the premises reasonably clean, the landlord may still have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant and cannot claim the cost of that to the tenant.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness do not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall. A tenant does not have to leave the premises cleaner and tidier than at the start of the tenancy. A claim for cleaning may be dismissed if there is no proof of the premises’ condition at the start of the tenancy.
The onus for establishing the claim sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the landlord is seeking to recover costs. Therefore, the landlord must prove that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii).
The landlords submitted about nine photographs of selected parts of the premises taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlords did not submit photographs from the commencement of the tenancy. However, the tenant accepted that the landlords provided the premises in a reasonably clean state.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not leave the premises (including the garden) reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish. However, the photographs do not show uncleanliness to justify the cleaning invoice of $695.75, bearing in mind that the standard is only “reasonably clean and tidy”. I find the tenant’s liability for the invoice is limited to $500.00.
The landlords have otherwise proved their losses as set out in the table above for cleaning, garden work, and window cleaning.

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the premises?

During the tenancy, the tenant’s flatmate or a person unknown altered the living room’s paintwork. The paintwork created triangular sections of slightly different coloured paint on the walls. The paintwork was neatly done but would not be to many people’s liking.
The painting alteration is damage to the premises, occurred during the tenancy, and is more than fair wear and tear. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission so the tenant is liable for his flatmate’s actions. 2 The tenant or an invitee must have executed the painting carefully and deliberately. Therefore, the painter caused the damage intentionally.
The tenant is liable to the landlords for the damage. However, the premises’ paintwork was near due for repainting anyway. The depreciation of the paintwork and the betterment the landlord receives from having brand new paintwork in consequence of the repair must be factored in. I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord for 50 percent of the cost of the painting repair work.
The toilets needed their inlet valves replaced. That was due to fair wear and tear. The tenant is not liable for the cost to fix the toilets. Is the tenant liable for the landlord’s rent loss?
The landlords claim for lost rent for the period it took to restore the premises. 2 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, 49B.
The cleaning, tidying and repairs required were of a routine nature. Landlords can expect there to be a break between tenancies for cleaning, maintenance, and the like on at least some occasions.
It would have been better if the tenant had reported the toilets issues earlier so the landlords could have addressed the problems prior to reletting; and plastering and painting is always likely to take more than a day or two even once a contractor is engaged. Nonetheless, I do not consider the delay between tenancies warrants the Tribunal finding the tenant liable for the landlords losing rent while the landlords’ contracts completed the required routine cleaning and repairs.
This claim is dismissed. Were the landlords’ rent increases unlawful?
Landlords must give tenants 60 days’ notice in writing of any rent increase. 3
The landlords’ most recent notice of rent increase given on 6 November 2024 gave the tenant less than 60 days’ notice. Therefore, the notice did not comply with the legal requirements for a rent increase and is invalid.
The landlords must reimburse the tenant $728.57 for the additional rent he paid in reliance on the invalid notice.
The tenant submitted the landlords’ rent increase of about two years earlier must also be non-compliant for similar reasons. However, he did not provide a copy of the notice nor even basic evidence such as the date when the rent had increased.
There is a lack of evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities the earlier rent increase was unlawful. It is dismissed.

Did the landlords harass the tenant?

The tenant claims the landlord harassed him in the earlier course of the proceedings.
This claim cannot be sustained because s 38(2) of the Act only applies where there is an “interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant”. 4
The tenancy had ended prior to these events. 3 RTA s 24. 4
This claim is dismissed. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of his name and identifying details. The landlords do not oppose non-publication.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest of justified by the tenant’s conduct. The tenancy address and landlords’ details are suppressed to protect the non-publication of the tenant’s details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322919 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322919 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlords harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlords harass the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions