What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331502 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 5331502?

Cleaning: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $104.32 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $68.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331502?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12897841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331502 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 5331502?

Cleaning: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $104.32 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $68.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331502?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12897841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331502 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331502 — net $1,329.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 August	$104.32	Rent arrears to 6 August
Water rates to 6 August 2025	$68.33	Water rates to 6 August 2025
Cleaning	$333.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: stain treatment	$215.00	Carpet Cleaning: stain treatment
Rubbish removal	$130.00	Rubbish removal
Kitchen cabinet repair	$50.00	Kitchen cabinet repair
Repairs: flooring	$400.00	Repairs: flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,329.15
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,329.15

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Advantage Realty Limited as agent for Kevin & Larraine Harris Donna Aitchison $1,329.15 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Advantage Realty Limited as agent for Kevin & Larraine Harris Donna Aitchison: $1,329.15 [The tenant/s]: $1,590.85
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund the of bond and compensation.
The landlord has made a cross application for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties have provided evidence, and I have reviewed this even if there is no direct reference to it.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 6 August 2025.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing of $104.32 for rent and $68.33 for water at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not directly dispute the water amount; however, she did consider that she had calculated the rent arrears and was not sure how there was still an amount owing.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the amounts ordered are 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. In particular, the landlord claims for cleaning throughout the property, and in particular to the carpets, kitchen (including drawers and cabinets) and bathrooms. The landlord says that there was also rubbish left at the property, including building supplies and a tyre. A pre-tenancy inspection report and post tenancy inspection report has been provided.
The landlord claims $333.50 for cleaning, $215.00 for stain treatment to the carpet and some rubbish removal cost. The invoice for rubbish removal includes repair of a kitchen cabinet, and the costs have not been itemised. Accordingly, I have attributed $180.00 to rubbish removal and $50.00 to the kitchen cabinet (which will be dealt with below).
The tenant strongly disputes these amounts. She says that at the commencement of the tenancy, the property was filthy, and that extensive cleaning was required throughout the property. The tenant has provided photographs she took at the start of the property. She says she should not be responsible for these amounts as the property was left in a better condition than when the tenancy commenced. The tenant engaged professional cleaners who provided her photographs at the end of the tenancy that show the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant also disputes that any rubbish was left at the property and considers that there was an arrangement made with respect to a table left behind, that the property manager failed to adhere to.
On review of the evidence, I consider that some further rubbish removal was required, even if there were some pieces of wood that were there at the commencement of the tenancy (such as beside the shed). There is nothing shown in the pre-purchase inspection report however, there is no photo of this location. Accordingly, I have reduced the amount awarded for rubbish removal to $130.00.
In respect of the cleaning, on review of the evidence I do consider that further cleaning and spot cleaning to the carpet was required, and these amounts are awarded. Even if the property was not perfectly tidy at the commencement of the tenancy, which isn’t supported by the pre-tenancy inspection report, the photographs show that it was in a worse condition at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
The landlord claims for repairs to the flooring, causing by a large scratch to the flooring, that was repaired at the invoiced cost of $400.00. The landlord also claims for the cost to reinstall a kitchen cabinet at the amount I have allocated for $50.00 (see above).
The tenant is not sure about the kitchen cabinet, as it may not have been reinstalled by their engaged contractors, who carried out works at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes the flooring damage and does not consider that this was evident at the end of the tenancy and says they did not damage the flooring.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the kitchen cabinet did require reinstallation and this amount is awarded. In respect of the flooring damage, although the exit report has not noted this, a photograph and invoice has been provided, together with evidence of its age, and I am satisfied that is it more likely than not that this damage occurred during the tenancy, at least carelessly.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Floor and kitchen cabinet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant has made an application for compensation relating to lawn mowing not being completed, poor cleanliness of the property on entry and lost wages as a result of the landlord’s claims. However, I have dealt with most of these claims in consideration of the landlord’s claims. I have insufficient evidence of the mowing claim, and this is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant requested name suppression on the basis that she made the application because of the high amount of costs being claimed against her and she does not want it to affect her ability to obtain a tenancy in the future. I consider in the circumstances that she had reasonably questioned the costs awarded against her, and name suppression is awarded. The landlord did not seek name suppression. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 19 December 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5331502 — net $1,329.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 August	$104.32	Rent arrears to 6 August
Water rates to 6 August 2025	$68.33	Water rates to 6 August 2025
Cleaning	$333.50	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning: stain treatment	$215.00	Carpet Cleaning: stain treatment
Rubbish removal	$130.00	Rubbish removal
Kitchen cabinet repair	$50.00	Kitchen cabinet repair
Repairs: flooring	$400.00	Repairs: flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,329.15
Bond	$2,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,329.15

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Advantage Realty Limited as agent for Kevin & Larraine Harris Donna Aitchison $1,329.15 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Advantage Realty Limited as agent for Kevin & Larraine Harris Donna Aitchison: $1,329.15 [The tenant/s]: $1,590.85
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund the of bond and compensation.
The landlord has made a cross application for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Both parties have provided evidence, and I have reviewed this even if there is no direct reference to it.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 6 August 2025.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing of $104.32 for rent and $68.33 for water at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant did not directly dispute the water amount; however, she did consider that she had calculated the rent arrears and was not sure how there was still an amount owing.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the amounts ordered are 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. In particular, the landlord claims for cleaning throughout the property, and in particular to the carpets, kitchen (including drawers and cabinets) and bathrooms. The landlord says that there was also rubbish left at the property, including building supplies and a tyre. A pre-tenancy inspection report and post tenancy inspection report has been provided.
The landlord claims $333.50 for cleaning, $215.00 for stain treatment to the carpet and some rubbish removal cost. The invoice for rubbish removal includes repair of a kitchen cabinet, and the costs have not been itemised. Accordingly, I have attributed $180.00 to rubbish removal and $50.00 to the kitchen cabinet (which will be dealt with below).
The tenant strongly disputes these amounts. She says that at the commencement of the tenancy, the property was filthy, and that extensive cleaning was required throughout the property. The tenant has provided photographs she took at the start of the property. She says she should not be responsible for these amounts as the property was left in a better condition than when the tenancy commenced. The tenant engaged professional cleaners who provided her photographs at the end of the tenancy that show the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant also disputes that any rubbish was left at the property and considers that there was an arrangement made with respect to a table left behind, that the property manager failed to adhere to.
On review of the evidence, I consider that some further rubbish removal was required, even if there were some pieces of wood that were there at the commencement of the tenancy (such as beside the shed). There is nothing shown in the pre-purchase inspection report however, there is no photo of this location. Accordingly, I have reduced the amount awarded for rubbish removal to $130.00.
In respect of the cleaning, on review of the evidence I do consider that further cleaning and spot cleaning to the carpet was required, and these amounts are awarded. Even if the property was not perfectly tidy at the commencement of the tenancy, which isn’t supported by the pre-tenancy inspection report, the photographs show that it was in a worse condition at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
The landlord claims for repairs to the flooring, causing by a large scratch to the flooring, that was repaired at the invoiced cost of $400.00. The landlord also claims for the cost to reinstall a kitchen cabinet at the amount I have allocated for $50.00 (see above).
The tenant is not sure about the kitchen cabinet, as it may not have been reinstalled by their engaged contractors, who carried out works at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes the flooring damage and does not consider that this was evident at the end of the tenancy and says they did not damage the flooring.
On review of the evidence, I consider that the kitchen cabinet did require reinstallation and this amount is awarded. In respect of the flooring damage, although the exit report has not noted this, a photograph and invoice has been provided, together with evidence of its age, and I am satisfied that is it more likely than not that this damage occurred during the tenancy, at least carelessly.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Floor and kitchen cabinet. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The tenant has made an application for compensation relating to lawn mowing not being completed, poor cleanliness of the property on entry and lost wages as a result of the landlord’s claims. However, I have dealt with most of these claims in consideration of the landlord’s claims. I have insufficient evidence of the mowing claim, and this is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant requested name suppression on the basis that she made the application because of the high amount of costs being claimed against her and she does not want it to affect her ability to obtain a tenancy in the future. I consider in the circumstances that she had reasonably questioned the costs awarded against her, and name suppression is awarded. The landlord did not seek name suppression. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 19 December 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331502 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331502 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Frequently asked questions