What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328779 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 5328779?

Cleaning: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $478.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328779?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13233576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328779 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 5328779?

Cleaning: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $143.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $478.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328779?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13233576-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328779 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328779 — net $2,577.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 17 September 2025	$1,600.00	Rent arrears (to 17 September 2025
Water rates	$478.24	Water rates
Cleaning	$143.75	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$143.75	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$184.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,577.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,577.74

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,577.74 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

On 19 August 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 20 December 2025, the landlord’s claim was amended to include: a. payment of outstanding water rates; and b. Compensation for cleaning costs, carpet cleaning costs and lawn mowing costs. c. The landlord withdrew their claim for termination of the tenancy as the tenant had vacated the property.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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. Background of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 6 May 2025 and was periodic.
The tenant vacated the property on 17 September 2025.
The bond was refunded in full to the landlord and used to offset a portion of the tenant’s rent arrears.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,600.00. The amount claimed is ordered.
The landlord seeks outstanding water rates totalling $478.24. The landlord provided a water rates bill from Watercare showing an outstanding balance of $489.11 for the period ending 1 October 2025.
The landlord provided a photograph of the water meter taken on the day the tenant vacated the property. The landlord said he calculated the volume of water used to the tenancy end dated and billed the tenant for that amount only. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the tenant’s water invoice and evidence payment had been properly demanded.
Having reviewed the evidence, the Tribunal finds the amount claimed proved.

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) of the Act.
The landlord seeks compensation in the following amounts after paying a contractor to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy: a. House clean - $287.50 b. Carpet Clean - $287.50 c. Lawn mower and garden - $184.00
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs provided were dated 23 December 2024, slight less than five months before the tenant’s liability for the property started. The landlord said the tenant had been living in the property with a family member, however their name was not listed as one of the occupants under the family members tenancy agreement.
The landlord provided a routine inspection report dated 18 July 2025 showing the condition of the property after the tenant’s tenancy commenced. That report recorded the following arears required cleaning: a. Bathroom - shower moulds. b. Lounge - carpets. c. Kitchen - rangehood filter.
The landlord provide the Tribunal with an exit inspection report with photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The report identifies the following arears that required additional cleaning: a. Gardens and lawns – lawn mowing to be done. b. Bedroom one – light shades need cleaning. c. Bedroom two – stain on carpet to be removed, clean light shades. d. Bedroom three – clean light shade. e. Kitchen – mould marks on the curtains/blinds, cupboards need cleaning, rangehood filter needed cleaning. f. Dining room – stain on carpet. g. Laundry – wash tubs needed cleaning.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition – only a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is required is that premises, including stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshade or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this ‘extra’ level so that they property can be re-tenanted or sold. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The inside of the property was left reasonably clean with the exception of the kitchen hob, cupboards and bathroom sink tap and shower tray. The exit inspection photographs show the hob was greasy and marked with food, the cupboards had not been properly empties and wiped out, the bathroom tap was marked, and the shower tray was dirty.
I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the light shades needed cleaning. Based on the photographs, limited description of the work done and size of the property the Tribunal awards the landlord half of the cleaning costs, being $143.75. That gives the landlord just over two hours of cleaning (at an estimated cost of $70.00 per hour) for the bathroom and kitchen to be brought up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord claimed carpet cleaning costs for the whole of the property.
The entry inspection report dated 23 December 2024 shows the carpet in the property was stained. The photographs in the routine inspection report dated 18 July 2025 shows the carpet to be in a similar condition as at 23 December 2024.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare the exit inspection report photographs with the 18 July 2025 routine inspection report photographs. This proved there was additional red staining to the carpet in bedrooms two and three at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal is satisfied that this staining was caused by the tenant and was more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant is liable for the cost of the whole house carpet clean and deducts 50% from the amount claimed to reflect this. The amount of $143.75 is ordered for carpet cleaning.
The landlord claimed lawn moving and garden weeding costs.
The landlord stated the lawns had not been mown and the garden beds required extensive weeding. I am satisfied the landlord has proven the lawns and gardens were not returned in a reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The exit inspection photographs show the lawns to be long and the garden beds required weeding. The amount claimed is proved. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328779 — net $2,577.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 17 September 2025	$1,600.00	Rent arrears (to 17 September 2025
Water rates	$478.24	Water rates
Cleaning	$143.75	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$143.75	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$184.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,577.74
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,577.74

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,577.74 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

On 19 August 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 20 December 2025, the landlord’s claim was amended to include: a. payment of outstanding water rates; and b. Compensation for cleaning costs, carpet cleaning costs and lawn mowing costs. c. The landlord withdrew their claim for termination of the tenancy as the tenant had vacated the property.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 or 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. Background of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 6 May 2025 and was periodic.
The tenant vacated the property on 17 September 2025.
The bond was refunded in full to the landlord and used to offset a portion of the tenant’s rent arrears.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,600.00. The amount claimed is ordered.
The landlord seeks outstanding water rates totalling $478.24. The landlord provided a water rates bill from Watercare showing an outstanding balance of $489.11 for the period ending 1 October 2025.
The landlord provided a photograph of the water meter taken on the day the tenant vacated the property. The landlord said he calculated the volume of water used to the tenancy end dated and billed the tenant for that amount only. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the tenant’s water invoice and evidence payment had been properly demanded.
Having reviewed the evidence, the Tribunal finds the amount claimed proved.

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) of the Act.
The landlord seeks compensation in the following amounts after paying a contractor to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy: a. House clean - $287.50 b. Carpet Clean - $287.50 c. Lawn mower and garden - $184.00
The pre-tenancy inspection report and photographs provided were dated 23 December 2024, slight less than five months before the tenant’s liability for the property started. The landlord said the tenant had been living in the property with a family member, however their name was not listed as one of the occupants under the family members tenancy agreement.
The landlord provided a routine inspection report dated 18 July 2025 showing the condition of the property after the tenant’s tenancy commenced. That report recorded the following arears required cleaning: a. Bathroom - shower moulds. b. Lounge - carpets. c. Kitchen - rangehood filter.
The landlord provide the Tribunal with an exit inspection report with photographs showing the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The report identifies the following arears that required additional cleaning: a. Gardens and lawns – lawn mowing to be done. b. Bedroom one – light shades need cleaning. c. Bedroom two – stain on carpet to be removed, clean light shades. d. Bedroom three – clean light shade. e. Kitchen – mould marks on the curtains/blinds, cupboards need cleaning, rangehood filter needed cleaning. f. Dining room – stain on carpet. g. Laundry – wash tubs needed cleaning.
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition – only a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is required is that premises, including stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshade or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this ‘extra’ level so that they property can be re-tenanted or sold. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The inside of the property was left reasonably clean with the exception of the kitchen hob, cupboards and bathroom sink tap and shower tray. The exit inspection photographs show the hob was greasy and marked with food, the cupboards had not been properly empties and wiped out, the bathroom tap was marked, and the shower tray was dirty.
I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the light shades needed cleaning. Based on the photographs, limited description of the work done and size of the property the Tribunal awards the landlord half of the cleaning costs, being $143.75. That gives the landlord just over two hours of cleaning (at an estimated cost of $70.00 per hour) for the bathroom and kitchen to be brought up to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.
The landlord claimed carpet cleaning costs for the whole of the property.
The entry inspection report dated 23 December 2024 shows the carpet in the property was stained. The photographs in the routine inspection report dated 18 July 2025 shows the carpet to be in a similar condition as at 23 December 2024.
The Tribunal was able to properly compare the exit inspection report photographs with the 18 July 2025 routine inspection report photographs. This proved there was additional red staining to the carpet in bedrooms two and three at the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal is satisfied that this staining was caused by the tenant and was more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant is liable for the cost of the whole house carpet clean and deducts 50% from the amount claimed to reflect this. The amount of $143.75 is ordered for carpet cleaning.
The landlord claimed lawn moving and garden weeding costs.
The landlord stated the lawns had not been mown and the garden beds required extensive weeding. I am satisfied the landlord has proven the lawns and gardens were not returned in a reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy. The exit inspection photographs show the lawns to be long and the garden beds required weeding. The amount claimed is proved. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328779 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328779 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions