What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333079 about?

The tribunal order states: Michael John Ellwood to pay Property Management Kapiti-Mana Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 5333079?

Cleaning: $633.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $105.46 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $111.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333079?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333079?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12817917-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333079 about?

The tribunal order states: Michael John Ellwood to pay Property Management Kapiti-Mana Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 5333079?

Cleaning: $633.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $105.46 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $111.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333079?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333079?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12817917-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 The Track, Plimmerton, Porirua 5026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5333079 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5333079 — net $975.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$633.00	Carpet Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries: 30min labour and bulbs	$105.46	Light bulbs/batteries: 30min labour and bulbs
Rubbish removal: 50	$111.76	Rubbish removal: 50
Cleaning	$125.00	Cleaning
Net award	$975.22
Bond	$1,592.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$975.22

Michael John Ellwood to pay Property Management Kapiti-Mana Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management Kapiti-Mana As Agent For A & H Quinn $975.22 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,592.52 (6475252-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Management Kapiti-Mana Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management Kapiti- Mana As Agent For A & H Quinn: $975.22 Michael John Ellwood: $617.30

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The hearing was adjourned on 3 December 2025 with timetabling for further evidence and a partial release of the undisputed portion of the bond to the tenant provided.

Both parties provided further evidence in support of their submissions at the hearing.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

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.

The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The carpet required professional cleaning. Carpet cleaning

There was mutual agreement that the $633.00 for carpet cleaning should be deducted from the bond.

The tenant disputed the extent of the costs claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal. Cleaning

The landlord provided a description of cleaning tasks and an invoice for $499.11. The limited photos do not justify the effort. The tasks include a level of cleaning that I consider above what is expected of a tenant. Having reviewed the evidence and invoice I award the landlord a partial sum of $125.00 to reflect those areas requiring additional cleaning to return those areas to a reasonable condition. Rubbish

An invoice for rubbish collection of $223.45 was tabled. Limited photos accompanied it. The tenant claims items other than his were removed and included in the invoice. He provided a photo in support of this.

The landlord provided the work order. It read:

I had two concerns with this work order and the invoice. The total invoiced was $223.45 but there was no evidence of a subsequent referral back for the cost over $200.00 was provided. The second concern is the general provision for “any rubbish lying in the gardens” – given some question about pre-existing items potentially being removed under this less-specific instruction, I have adjusted the award to approximately 50% - both parties should carry a share of the cost. That means $111.76 of the invoice is awarded to the landlord. Lights

Three light bulbs were acquired and replaced. An electrician attended for 1.5 hours to install those as well as some replacement bulbs left by the tenant. The invoice total of $208.96 was sought but I am not satisfied the labour claimed reflects a reasonable requirement on the tenant. Some ceiling lights needing replacement were at such a height that an appropriate ladder and contractor was required to replace them. I have reduced the labour component of that invoice to 30 min and award the balance, totalling $105.46. I consider the reasonable life expectancy of the light bulbs but given the tenancy was 2.5 years I do not consider any part-sharing of the bulb costs with the landlord is appropriate.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Given the awards made versus the claims made, I do not consider the landlord has been substantially successful and the filing fee cost remains with the applicant.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5333079 — net $975.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$633.00	Carpet Cleaning
Light bulbs/batteries: 30min labour and bulbs	$105.46	Light bulbs/batteries: 30min labour and bulbs
Rubbish removal: 50	$111.76	Rubbish removal: 50
Cleaning	$125.00	Cleaning
Net award	$975.22
Bond	$1,592.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$975.22

Michael John Ellwood to pay Property Management Kapiti-Mana Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management Kapiti-Mana As Agent For A & H Quinn $975.22 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The hearing was adjourned on 3 December 2025 with timetabling for further evidence and a partial release of the undisputed portion of the bond to the tenant provided.

Both parties provided further evidence in support of their submissions at the hearing.

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

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The carpet required professional cleaning. Carpet cleaning

There was mutual agreement that the $633.00 for carpet cleaning should be deducted from the bond.

The tenant disputed the extent of the costs claimed for cleaning and rubbish removal. Cleaning

The landlord provided the work order. It read:

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Given the awards made versus the claims made, I do not consider the landlord has been substantially successful and the filing fee cost remains with the applicant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333079 — Cleanliness at 6 The Track, Plimmerton, Porirua 5026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333079 — Cleanliness at 6 The Track, Plimmerton, Porirua 5026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions