What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5330460 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 5330460?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $439.20 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,065.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5330460?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5330460?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12591773-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5330460 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 5330460?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $439.20 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,065.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5330460?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5330460?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12591773-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Selwyn Street, Pohara, RD 1, Takaka 7183 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5330460 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5330460 — net $1,622.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 July 2025	$1,065.00	Rent arrears to 9 July 2025
Lock/key replacement	$439.20	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,622.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,622.20

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Julie Ann Ropata must pay [The landlord/s] $1,622.20 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 9 July 2025$1,065.00 Lock/key replacement$439.20 Cleaning$500.00 Carpet Cleaning$150.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,182.20 Bond$560.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,622.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
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?

The landlord gave the tenant 90-days’ notice to end the tenancy on 11 July 2025. Subsequently, the tenant notified the landlord that she wished to vacate on 14-days’ notice. The landlord pointed out that the tenant was legally required to give 21-days’ notice and agreed that the tenancy would then end on 9 July 2025. The tenant claimed that she did not agree to the tenancy ending on 9 July 2025 and that she remained in occupation until 10 July 2025.
Having given notice, a tenant cannot then cancel that notice without the consent of the landlord. The landlord did not consent and correctly noted that 21-days’ notice was required. The landlord confirmed that she was only seeking rent to 9 July 2025.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 9 July 2025 and this sum is awarded to the landlord.

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, and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant claimed that the landlord had said that she only needed to clean the bathroom and the ranch slider. The landlord denied this claim and noted that the photographic evidence confirmed the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim was for $990.00 being for 22 hours cleaning at a rate of $45.00 per hour. This equates to nearly three full days work.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The property was being prepared for sale at the end of the tenancy. The amount of time spent cleaning the property indicates that it was cleaned to a higher standard than that required of the tenant. It is appropriate to award a sum that the Tribunal regularly sees for cleaning a three-bedroom house to the required standard.
The landlord claimed for the cleaning of all the carpets. The landlord claimed, and the tenant accepted, that the tenant’s fridge had leaked water onto the lounge carpet and left a rust stain. The landlord claimed that there was a bad smell in one of the bedrooms that required commercial cleaning. The tenant denied that she was responsible for this smell and explained that the floor was damaged, there was no underfloor ventilation and that water pooled underneath it causing dampness and mould in the carpet.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the cleaning of all the carpets after a tenancy of some seven years. The tenant is responsible for the removal of the staining left by her fridge, but the Tribunal is not persuaded that the tenant is responsible for the cleaning of the rest of the carpets. The landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal that the cleaning was not due to fair wear and tear.
A sum is awarded to the landlord for the removal of the stain left by the tenant’s fridge.
The landlord withdrew its claim for the removal of rubbish.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not return the keys. It claimed a sum for the replacement of one lock and accepted that the tenant did not receive a key for the other door at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that the landlord did not accept the return of the key and acknowledged that she still retained this key.
The tenant is required to return the keys to the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenant could simply have left the keys at the property. She did not do so. The landlord is entitled to replace the lock in these circumstances.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5330460 — net $1,622.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 July 2025	$1,065.00	Rent arrears to 9 July 2025
Lock/key replacement	$439.20	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,622.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,622.20

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Julie Ann Ropata must pay [The landlord/s] $1,622.20 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 9 July 2025$1,065.00 Lock/key replacement$439.20 Cleaning$500.00 Carpet Cleaning$150.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,182.20 Bond$560.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,622.20

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
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?

The landlord gave the tenant 90-days’ notice to end the tenancy on 11 July 2025. Subsequently, the tenant notified the landlord that she wished to vacate on 14-days’ notice. The landlord pointed out that the tenant was legally required to give 21-days’ notice and agreed that the tenancy would then end on 9 July 2025. The tenant claimed that she did not agree to the tenancy ending on 9 July 2025 and that she remained in occupation until 10 July 2025.
Having given notice, a tenant cannot then cancel that notice without the consent of the landlord. The landlord did not consent and correctly noted that 21-days’ notice was required. The landlord confirmed that she was only seeking rent to 9 July 2025.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy on 9 July 2025 and this sum is awarded to the landlord.

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, and return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant claimed that the landlord had said that she only needed to clean the bathroom and the ranch slider. The landlord denied this claim and noted that the photographic evidence confirmed the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim was for $990.00 being for 22 hours cleaning at a rate of $45.00 per hour. This equates to nearly three full days work.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The property was being prepared for sale at the end of the tenancy. The amount of time spent cleaning the property indicates that it was cleaned to a higher standard than that required of the tenant. It is appropriate to award a sum that the Tribunal regularly sees for cleaning a three-bedroom house to the required standard.
The landlord claimed for the cleaning of all the carpets. The landlord claimed, and the tenant accepted, that the tenant’s fridge had leaked water onto the lounge carpet and left a rust stain. The landlord claimed that there was a bad smell in one of the bedrooms that required commercial cleaning. The tenant denied that she was responsible for this smell and explained that the floor was damaged, there was no underfloor ventilation and that water pooled underneath it causing dampness and mould in the carpet.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is responsible for the cleaning of all the carpets after a tenancy of some seven years. The tenant is responsible for the removal of the staining left by her fridge, but the Tribunal is not persuaded that the tenant is responsible for the cleaning of the rest of the carpets. The landlord has not persuaded the Tribunal that the cleaning was not due to fair wear and tear.
A sum is awarded to the landlord for the removal of the stain left by the tenant’s fridge.
The landlord withdrew its claim for the removal of rubbish.
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not return the keys. It claimed a sum for the replacement of one lock and accepted that the tenant did not receive a key for the other door at the start of the tenancy.
The tenant claimed that the landlord did not accept the return of the key and acknowledged that she still retained this key.
The tenant is required to return the keys to the property at the end of the tenancy. The tenant could simply have left the keys at the property. She did not do so. The landlord is entitled to replace the lock in these circumstances.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5330460 — Rent arrears at 5 Selwyn Street, Pohara, RD 1, Takaka 7183

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5330460 — Rent arrears at 5 Selwyn Street, Pohara, RD 1, Takaka 7183

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions