What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335070 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 5335070?

Cleaning: $409.67 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $211.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $39.04 awarded to landlord; Set off compensation: Breach of quie…: $330.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335070?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12895882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335070 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 5335070?

Cleaning: $409.67 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $211.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $39.04 awarded to landlord; Set off compensation: Breach of quie…: $330.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335070?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12895882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335070 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335070 — net $330.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Curtains	$211.87		Curtains
Outdoor shed repair	$39.04		Outdoor shed repair
Carpet Cleaning: Garage door	$409.67		Carpet Cleaning: Garage door
Set off compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$330.29	Set off compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$660.58	$330.29
Net award	$330.29
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$330.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $330.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $330.29 [The tenant/s]: $2,669.71

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a bond refund and seeks a set off against any compensation awarded to the landlord for breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenants rented a 4-bedroom premises with a large section and gated driveway and moved in with their six children. There was a shed at the rear of the property and the tenants were advised of the boundary of their area and informed that the shed was not included with the tenancy as the owner had goods stored there.
The tenancy ended on 12 August 2025.

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 landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
In support of the claim the landlord provided a copy of the exit inspection report and a copy of an invoice in the sum of $155.25 which itemised the cleaning done.
The tenant disputed the claim and stated that the property was left clean. The tenant provided photographs responding to matters recorded in the invoice.
It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate 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. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I have carefully considered the exit inspection report and the tenant photographs supplied and find that while the premises are not immaculate the landlord has failed to prove that they were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
Therefore, I decline to order reimbursement of cleaning costs.

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 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.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Bedroom 1 curtains. (a) The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs which showed that mould had developed on the curtains during the tenancy. The tenant stated that they did not see this as they had added black out linings which they removed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord advised that the cost of drying cleaning was greater than the cost of replacement, so the curtains were replaced at a cost of $339.00. The tenant claimed that the curtains could have been washed if they had been given the opportunity. Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that there was damage to the curtains that is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. (b) In considering compensation I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The Tribunal considers the likely lifespan for curtains to be eight years. The landlord advised that the curtains are three years old. I have depreciated the amount claimed by 37.5% and order the amount of $211.87.
Bedroom 3 wall (a) The landlord claimed that there was damage as there was a nick to the paintwork in bedroom 3 and sought reimbursement of the sum of $5.70 for touch up paint. (b) The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and an invoice for the pain. (c) I have considered the evidence and find that the small mark is a result of fair wear and tear and therefore the tenants are not liable for the touch up paint.
Cracked tile on the hearth (a) The landlord claimed that there was a cracked tile near the fireplace in the family room. Entry and exit inspection photographs were provided. The landlord sought reimbursement of the sum of $31.90 for grouting and an invoice was provided. (b) The tenant stated they had no knowledge of any damage to the tiles and denied causing damage. (c) I have carefully considered the photographs and find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities as although there is a close up photograph of a small crack on one tile the crack cannot be seen from the wider angle photographs which look the same as the entry photographs. As the crack is so small I am not satisfied that it is beyond fair wear and tear and no compensation will be ordered.
Shed (a) The landlord claimed that there was a dent in the wall of the metal outdoor shed. Entry and exit photographs were provided and I am satisfied the dent occurred during the tenancy. (b) The tenant accepted this claim and the amount of $39.04 is ordered for the repair as sought.
Garage internal door (a) The internal door to the garage was dented in. The tenants stated this damage occurred as they were moving out. The tenants accepted liability but questioned the cost of the replacement new door in the sum of $512.09 as the existing door was old. The landlord advised the door was approximately 20 years old. Although wooden doors have a long lifespan I have decreased the amount ordered by 20 percent to reflect depreciation. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises?
Tenants are entitled to have quiet enjoyment of their premises without interruption by the landlord. A landlord must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants rented a 4-bedroom premises with a large section and gated driveway.
It was agreed that when they viewed the property they were advised of the boundary of their area and informed that the shed at the rear was not included with the tenancy as the owner had goods stored there. The tenants agreed to this.
The tenancy agreement recorded the tenancy address as “[Tenancy address suppressed]”.
The tenants stated that soon after moving in they discovered that there was someone else living on the property at the back of the shed. They both shared the same address, same letterbox and same driveway. The tenants also discovered that the landlord regularly came on to the property as he was friends with the other resident.
The tenants stated that they were concerned as they had chosen this property due to it being safe for their six children as it was off the road and the gate to the property could be closed. They intended that their children would be able to play and ride bikes safely on the property. Instead, they discovered that the driveway was regularly used by the back resident and the landlord visited once or twice a week.
The tenants emailed the property manager about this a number of times after the tenancy began. The property manager also expressed that she did not know about this arrangement and would ask the landlord to give notice when he was entering the property. The tenants stated that this did not occur.
The landlord responded that the tenants were notified of the boundary of the premises and that it did not include the shed, there was no explanation as to why the tenants were not told someone was living at the back. The landlord also pointed out that there was a clause in the tenancy agreement about shared driveways. The landlord also pointed out that the communication provided by the tenants with the property manager dated back to May 2024 and no 14-day notice was issued. The landlord claimed the issues was only raised now due to the claims on the bond.
The tenant stated there was a shared drive with other properties but they did not think the standard clause related to the driveway inside their property as they were not aware there was someone else on their property. They also stated that they continued to have concerns about their quiet enjoyment but did not take further action as the owner did not comply with the request for notice before entering the property.
I find that the tenants have proved on the balance of probabilities that their quiet enjoyment was breached during the tenancy for the following reasons: (a) The tenants were not told prior to the commencement of the tenancy that there was someone else living at the same address in a second dwelling. (b) The tenants had a right to expect exclusive use of the address recorded in the tenancy agreement as there were no special terms recording the existence of other occupants. (c) The landlord continued to come on to the property throughout the tenancy for reasons that did not relate to this tenancy. (d) The tenants were not able to lock the gate and secure the premises as they expected due to some one else entering through the gate. (e) The tenants had concerns for their children’s safety while playing due to other vehicles entering the property. (f) The tenants had to share a letterbox in breach of their privacy.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)). The tenant seeks compensation by way of a set off against the compensation claimed by the landlord. I have considered the effect on the tenants of the breach including the inconvenience of sharing a driveway and letterbox and the loss of privacy they expected at their premises together with the time since the tenants last raised the issue with the landlord and find that it is appropriate to order a set off against half of the compensation awarded to the landlord. Therefore, the amount ordered to be paid to the landlord will be reduced by half to $330.29 as recorded in the table in order 2. Filing fee/Suppression
As both parties have had some success with their claims and both have paid a filing fee, I make no order regarding reimbursement of either filing fee.
Both parties are seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. The Tribunal may make the order having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Both parties have had some success with their applications. Having considered the factors in this case I find that the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in their identities being published and the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335070 — net $330.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Curtains	$211.87		Curtains
Outdoor shed repair	$39.04		Outdoor shed repair
Carpet Cleaning: Garage door	$409.67		Carpet Cleaning: Garage door
Set off compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment		$330.29	Set off compensation: Breach of quiet enjoyment
Total award	$660.58	$330.29
Net award	$330.29
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$330.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $330.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $330.29 [The tenant/s]: $2,669.71

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by videoconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a bond refund and seeks a set off against any compensation awarded to the landlord for breach of quiet enjoyment.
The tenants rented a 4-bedroom premises with a large section and gated driveway and moved in with their six children. There was a shed at the rear of the property and the tenants were advised of the boundary of their area and informed that the shed was not included with the tenancy as the owner had goods stored there.
The tenancy ended on 12 August 2025.

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 landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
In support of the claim the landlord provided a copy of the exit inspection report and a copy of an invoice in the sum of $155.25 which itemised the cleaning done.
The tenant disputed the claim and stated that the property was left clean. The tenant provided photographs responding to matters recorded in the invoice.
It is not always easy to define what "reasonably clean and tidy" means. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate 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. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
I have carefully considered the exit inspection report and the tenant photographs supplied and find that while the premises are not immaculate the landlord has failed to prove that they were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
Therefore, I decline to order reimbursement of cleaning costs.

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 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.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Bedroom 1 curtains. (a) The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs which showed that mould had developed on the curtains during the tenancy. The tenant stated that they did not see this as they had added black out linings which they removed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord advised that the cost of drying cleaning was greater than the cost of replacement, so the curtains were replaced at a cost of $339.00. The tenant claimed that the curtains could have been washed if they had been given the opportunity. Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that there was damage to the curtains that is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. (b) In considering compensation I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The Tribunal considers the likely lifespan for curtains to be eight years. The landlord advised that the curtains are three years old. I have depreciated the amount claimed by 37.5% and order the amount of $211.87.
Bedroom 3 wall (a) The landlord claimed that there was damage as there was a nick to the paintwork in bedroom 3 and sought reimbursement of the sum of $5.70 for touch up paint. (b) The landlord provided entry and exit inspection photographs and an invoice for the pain. (c) I have considered the evidence and find that the small mark is a result of fair wear and tear and therefore the tenants are not liable for the touch up paint.
Cracked tile on the hearth (a) The landlord claimed that there was a cracked tile near the fireplace in the family room. Entry and exit inspection photographs were provided. The landlord sought reimbursement of the sum of $31.90 for grouting and an invoice was provided. (b) The tenant stated they had no knowledge of any damage to the tiles and denied causing damage. (c) I have carefully considered the photographs and find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities as although there is a close up photograph of a small crack on one tile the crack cannot be seen from the wider angle photographs which look the same as the entry photographs. As the crack is so small I am not satisfied that it is beyond fair wear and tear and no compensation will be ordered.
Shed (a) The landlord claimed that there was a dent in the wall of the metal outdoor shed. Entry and exit photographs were provided and I am satisfied the dent occurred during the tenancy. (b) The tenant accepted this claim and the amount of $39.04 is ordered for the repair as sought.
Garage internal door (a) The internal door to the garage was dented in. The tenants stated this damage occurred as they were moving out. The tenants accepted liability but questioned the cost of the replacement new door in the sum of $512.09 as the existing door was old. The landlord advised the door was approximately 20 years old. Although wooden doors have a long lifespan I have decreased the amount ordered by 20 percent to reflect depreciation. Did the landlord breach the tenants’ quiet enjoyment of the premises?
Tenants are entitled to have quiet enjoyment of their premises without interruption by the landlord. A landlord must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants rented a 4-bedroom premises with a large section and gated driveway.
It was agreed that when they viewed the property they were advised of the boundary of their area and informed that the shed at the rear was not included with the tenancy as the owner had goods stored there. The tenants agreed to this.
The tenancy agreement recorded the tenancy address as “[Tenancy address suppressed]”.
The tenants stated that soon after moving in they discovered that there was someone else living on the property at the back of the shed. They both shared the same address, same letterbox and same driveway. The tenants also discovered that the landlord regularly came on to the property as he was friends with the other resident.
The tenants stated that they were concerned as they had chosen this property due to it being safe for their six children as it was off the road and the gate to the property could be closed. They intended that their children would be able to play and ride bikes safely on the property. Instead, they discovered that the driveway was regularly used by the back resident and the landlord visited once or twice a week.
The tenants emailed the property manager about this a number of times after the tenancy began. The property manager also expressed that she did not know about this arrangement and would ask the landlord to give notice when he was entering the property. The tenants stated that this did not occur.
The landlord responded that the tenants were notified of the boundary of the premises and that it did not include the shed, there was no explanation as to why the tenants were not told someone was living at the back. The landlord also pointed out that there was a clause in the tenancy agreement about shared driveways. The landlord also pointed out that the communication provided by the tenants with the property manager dated back to May 2024 and no 14-day notice was issued. The landlord claimed the issues was only raised now due to the claims on the bond.
The tenant stated there was a shared drive with other properties but they did not think the standard clause related to the driveway inside their property as they were not aware there was someone else on their property. They also stated that they continued to have concerns about their quiet enjoyment but did not take further action as the owner did not comply with the request for notice before entering the property.
I find that the tenants have proved on the balance of probabilities that their quiet enjoyment was breached during the tenancy for the following reasons: (a) The tenants were not told prior to the commencement of the tenancy that there was someone else living at the same address in a second dwelling. (b) The tenants had a right to expect exclusive use of the address recorded in the tenancy agreement as there were no special terms recording the existence of other occupants. (c) The landlord continued to come on to the property throughout the tenancy for reasons that did not relate to this tenancy. (d) The tenants were not able to lock the gate and secure the premises as they expected due to some one else entering through the gate. (e) The tenants had concerns for their children’s safety while playing due to other vehicles entering the property. (f) The tenants had to share a letterbox in breach of their privacy.
The Tribunal can order a landlord to pay such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any provision of the Residential Tenancies Act (section 77(2)(n)). The tenant seeks compensation by way of a set off against the compensation claimed by the landlord. I have considered the effect on the tenants of the breach including the inconvenience of sharing a driveway and letterbox and the loss of privacy they expected at their premises together with the time since the tenants last raised the issue with the landlord and find that it is appropriate to order a set off against half of the compensation awarded to the landlord. Therefore, the amount ordered to be paid to the landlord will be reduced by half to $330.29 as recorded in the table in order 2. Filing fee/Suppression
As both parties have had some success with their claims and both have paid a filing fee, I make no order regarding reimbursement of either filing fee.
Both parties are seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. The Tribunal may make the order having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Both parties have had some success with their applications. Having considered the factors in this case I find that the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in their identities being published and the Tribunal grants suppression as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335070 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335070 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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