What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338457 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 5338457?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $483.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338457?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12576468-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338457 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 5338457?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $483.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338457?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338457?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12576468-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Sunnyheights Road, Orewa, Orewa 0931 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338457 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338457 — net $861.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lawns	$50.00	Lawns
Rubbish removal	$483.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$861.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$861.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name.
Andrea Benkova and Bertold Benko must pay [The landlord/s] $861.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Introduction

Andrea Benkova and Bertold Benko (the Tenant) lived at 7 Sunnyheights Road, Orewa (the Premises) owned by [The owner/s] (the Owner) and managed by [The property manager/s] (the Property Manager) (together, the Landlord) for slightly less than one year.
The Landlord says that, after the tenancy was terminated, 1 the Tenant moved out of the Premises but failed to pay outstanding water rates, leave the Premises clean, remove all rubbish and caused damage inside the Premises.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for unpaid water consumption charges? b. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for failing to leave the

Premises reasonably clean?

c. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for failing to remove all rubbish from the Premises? d. Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage inside the Premises? e. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee? f. Should the Landlord’s name be suppressed?

On 16 October 2025, the Property Manager attended the in-person hearing. The Tenant did not attend. I am satisfied the Tenant was served with notice of the hearing and proceeded in their absence.
I note the bond was previously refunded to the Landlord in partial payment of rent arrears owed at the end of the tenancy. 2 The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
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. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction 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. 1 Pursuant to Tribunal order 5283122, dated 22 August 2025. 2 Ibid.
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. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for unpaid water consumption charges?
A landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied, or are incurred for common facilities. A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. 3
The Landlord says the Tenant owes the Landlord $298.93 in unpaid water consumption charges.
The Landlord did not produce evidence to prove how the figure of $298.93 in water consumption charges was calculated. The Landlord produced one Watercare invoice dated 23 June 2025, which recorded consumption charges of $233.08 for the period 22 May – 23 June 2025. However, the Landlord says the Tenant moved out of the Premises on 11 June 2025, and they seek payment for water consumption to that date only. No breakdown was provided as to how the Landlord calculated water consumption to 11 June 2025.
I also note that the Watercare invoice dated 23 June 2025 recorded an overdue balance owing of $298.26 (in addition to the current consumption charge of $233.08). However, the invoice does not show what period of consumption that overdue balance relates to, and no other earlier invoices were produced. I am therefore not satisfied the Landlord has proved the overdue balance was accrued by the Tenant during the tenancy.
As the Landlord has not proved the Tenant consumed water during the tenancy which amounts to $298.93 in charges, the Landlord’s claim is dismissed. 3 Section 39(1) and (3) of the Act. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for failing to leave the Premises reasonably clean?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 4 A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
The Landlord says the Tenants did not leave the Premises reasonably clean and the Landlord incurred the cost of $900 (+GST) to have the interior of the Premises cleaned. The Landlord also says the Tenant did not mow the lawns and the Landlord incurred the cost of $100 (+GST) to have them mowed. The total cost incurred was $1,150.00.
The Landlord produced an invoice dated 29 June 2025 from a cleaning company for the cost of interior cleaning and lawn mowing.
The Landlord relied on a small number of photos taken at the Premises on 11 June 2025. The photos show the kitchen extractor fan and oven were not left clean. Photos of the bedrooms show a small amount of debris on the carpet. No photos were produced of the bathroom, or other parts of the kitchen.
The Landlord said the Premises had not been cleaned, toilets were dirty and there were marks on the walls.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the oven and extractor fan were not left reasonably clean. I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the bathrooms, or other parts of the Premises, were not left reasonably clean as no evidence was produced to demonstrate that.
I am prepared to accept that some cleaning was required. I consider an appropriate contribution to the cost of cleaning the interior of the Premises is $300 and make an order accordingly.
The Landlord also said the lawns were not left in a tidy condition. In support, the Landlord produced one photo taken on 11 June 2025 showing overgrown grass above a retaining wall at the side of the home. Other photos (taken primarily to document rubbish left at the Premises) show grass areas which were not significantly overgrown.
I consider an appropriate contribution to the cost of lawn mowing is $50 and make an order accordingly. 4 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for failing to remove all rubbish from the Premises?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. 5
The Landlord says the Tenant left rubbish in the garage, on the grass beside the driveway and other small pieces throughout the house.
The Landlord says it cost $483 to have the rubbish removed and dumped. The Landlord produced an invoice dated 29 June 2025 from a cleaning company for the cost of removing rubbish.
The Landlord relied on photos taken at the Premises on 11 June 2025 showing a large number of items were left stacked on the grass beside the driveway, and left strewn on the floor of the garage.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant failed to remove all rubbish and the compensation sought was the actual cost incurred by the Landlord to remove the rubbish.
I make an order accordingly.

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage inside 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. 6
The Landlord says the Tenant damaged a wardrobe sliding door in Bedroom 4, which cost $172.50 to fix, and a hole in a bedroom wall, which cost $115 to fix.
The Landlord produced invoices in the amounts sought, and photos taken on 11 June 2025 showing the wardrobe door in bedroom 4 was out of alignment, and showing some damage to walls in the ensuite bathroom and lounge. 7
At the hearing, the Landlord sought to produce an inspection report dated 19 August 2024 as evidence of the condition of those interior areas at the start of the tenancy. 8 As the Landlord was having issues emailing the inspection report during the hearing, the Landlord was permitted until 5pm on 16 October 2025 to email a copy of the inspection report to the registry (copied to the Tenant). 9 As 5 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 7 The Property Manager says she believed the wall repairs were to these rooms, not a bedroom as stated in the invoice. 8 The tenancy started on 19 August 2024. 9 During the hearing, the Landlord provided the photo numbers for the adjudicator to refer to once the August 2024 inspection report was received. at 9am on 17 October 2025, the inspection report dated 19 August 2024 has not been received by email.
Without evidence as to the condition of the wardrobe door and internal walls at the start (or during) the tenancy, the Landlord has not proved the damage occurred during this tenancy.
The Landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the sliding wardrobe door and internal walls are dismissed. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee?
As the Landlord has partly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Should the Landlord’s name be suppressed?
As the Landlord has partly (and in my view substantially) succeeded with their claim, the Landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338457 — net $861.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lawns	$50.00	Lawns
Rubbish removal	$483.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$861.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$861.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name.
Andrea Benkova and Bertold Benko must pay [The landlord/s] $861.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Introduction

Andrea Benkova and Bertold Benko (the Tenant) lived at 7 Sunnyheights Road, Orewa (the Premises) owned by [The owner/s] (the Owner) and managed by [The property manager/s] (the Property Manager) (together, the Landlord) for slightly less than one year.
The Landlord says that, after the tenancy was terminated, 1 the Tenant moved out of the Premises but failed to pay outstanding water rates, leave the Premises clean, remove all rubbish and caused damage inside the Premises.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for unpaid water consumption charges? b. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for failing to leave the

Premises reasonably clean?

On 16 October 2025, the Property Manager attended the in-person hearing. The Tenant did not attend. I am satisfied the Tenant was served with notice of the hearing and proceeded in their absence.
I note the bond was previously refunded to the Landlord in partial payment of rent arrears owed at the end of the tenancy. 2 The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
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. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction 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. 1 Pursuant to Tribunal order 5283122, dated 22 August 2025. 2 Ibid.
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. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for unpaid water consumption charges?
A landlord is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are incurred whether or not the premises are occupied, or are incurred for common facilities. A tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. 3
The Landlord says the Tenant owes the Landlord $298.93 in unpaid water consumption charges.
The Landlord did not produce evidence to prove how the figure of $298.93 in water consumption charges was calculated. The Landlord produced one Watercare invoice dated 23 June 2025, which recorded consumption charges of $233.08 for the period 22 May – 23 June 2025. However, the Landlord says the Tenant moved out of the Premises on 11 June 2025, and they seek payment for water consumption to that date only. No breakdown was provided as to how the Landlord calculated water consumption to 11 June 2025.
I also note that the Watercare invoice dated 23 June 2025 recorded an overdue balance owing of $298.26 (in addition to the current consumption charge of $233.08). However, the invoice does not show what period of consumption that overdue balance relates to, and no other earlier invoices were produced. I am therefore not satisfied the Landlord has proved the overdue balance was accrued by the Tenant during the tenancy.
As the Landlord has not proved the Tenant consumed water during the tenancy which amounts to $298.93 in charges, the Landlord’s claim is dismissed. 3 Section 39(1) and (3) of the Act. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for failing to leave the Premises reasonably clean?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 4 A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
The Landlord says the Tenants did not leave the Premises reasonably clean and the Landlord incurred the cost of $900 (+GST) to have the interior of the Premises cleaned. The Landlord also says the Tenant did not mow the lawns and the Landlord incurred the cost of $100 (+GST) to have them mowed. The total cost incurred was $1,150.00.
The Landlord produced an invoice dated 29 June 2025 from a cleaning company for the cost of interior cleaning and lawn mowing.
The Landlord relied on a small number of photos taken at the Premises on 11 June 2025. The photos show the kitchen extractor fan and oven were not left clean. Photos of the bedrooms show a small amount of debris on the carpet. No photos were produced of the bathroom, or other parts of the kitchen.
The Landlord said the Premises had not been cleaned, toilets were dirty and there were marks on the walls.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the oven and extractor fan were not left reasonably clean. I am not satisfied the Landlord has proved the bathrooms, or other parts of the Premises, were not left reasonably clean as no evidence was produced to demonstrate that.
I am prepared to accept that some cleaning was required. I consider an appropriate contribution to the cost of cleaning the interior of the Premises is $300 and make an order accordingly.
The Landlord also said the lawns were not left in a tidy condition. In support, the Landlord produced one photo taken on 11 June 2025 showing overgrown grass above a retaining wall at the side of the home. Other photos (taken primarily to document rubbish left at the Premises) show grass areas which were not significantly overgrown.
I consider an appropriate contribution to the cost of lawn mowing is $50 and make an order accordingly. 4 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. Should the Tenant pay the Landlord compensation for failing to remove all rubbish from the Premises?
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish. 5
The Landlord says the Tenant left rubbish in the garage, on the grass beside the driveway and other small pieces throughout the house.
The Landlord says it cost $483 to have the rubbish removed and dumped. The Landlord produced an invoice dated 29 June 2025 from a cleaning company for the cost of removing rubbish.
The Landlord relied on photos taken at the Premises on 11 June 2025 showing a large number of items were left stacked on the grass beside the driveway, and left strewn on the floor of the garage.
I am satisfied the Landlord has proved the Tenant failed to remove all rubbish and the compensation sought was the actual cost incurred by the Landlord to remove the rubbish.
I make an order accordingly.

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage inside 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. 6
The Landlord says the Tenant damaged a wardrobe sliding door in Bedroom 4, which cost $172.50 to fix, and a hole in a bedroom wall, which cost $115 to fix.
The Landlord produced invoices in the amounts sought, and photos taken on 11 June 2025 showing the wardrobe door in bedroom 4 was out of alignment, and showing some damage to walls in the ensuite bathroom and lounge. 7
At the hearing, the Landlord sought to produce an inspection report dated 19 August 2024 as evidence of the condition of those interior areas at the start of the tenancy. 8 As the Landlord was having issues emailing the inspection report during the hearing, the Landlord was permitted until 5pm on 16 October 2025 to email a copy of the inspection report to the registry (copied to the Tenant). 9 As 5 See section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. 7 The Property Manager says she believed the wall repairs were to these rooms, not a bedroom as stated in the invoice. 8 The tenancy started on 19 August 2024. 9 During the hearing, the Landlord provided the photo numbers for the adjudicator to refer to once the August 2024 inspection report was received. at 9am on 17 October 2025, the inspection report dated 19 August 2024 has not been received by email.
Without evidence as to the condition of the wardrobe door and internal walls at the start (or during) the tenancy, the Landlord has not proved the damage occurred during this tenancy.
The Landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the sliding wardrobe door and internal walls are dismissed. Should the Tenant reimburse the Landlord’s filing fee?
As the Landlord has partly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Should the Landlord’s name be suppressed?
As the Landlord has partly (and in my view substantially) succeeded with their claim, the Landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338457 — Cleanliness at 7 Sunnyheights Road, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338457 — Cleanliness at 7 Sunnyheights Road, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Premises reasonably clean?

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage inside the Premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Premises reasonably clean?

Is the Tenant liable for the cost of repairing damage inside the Premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions