What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340524 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 5340524?

Cleaning: $937.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340524?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13278454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340524 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 5340524?

Cleaning: $937.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340524?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13278454-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Pencarrow Street, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340524 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340524 — net $505.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$937.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$505.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$505.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Amanda Jones and Brayden Jones must pay [The landlord/s] $505.50 immediately for cleaning costs and reimbursement of the filing fee, as calculated and shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$937.50 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$965.50 Minus Bond-$460.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$505.50
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $460.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for restoring the lawns, removing the incinerator and repairing the shed wall.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a tenancy that commenced in 2010 and terminated on 18 May 2025. The landlord had issued the tenants with a 90 days’ notice to terminate as he had wanted to do a renovation on the property.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 10 March 2026 the tenants filed a counter claim. I had both applications before me at this hearing, but it was decided to deal solely with the landlord application and adjourn the tenants claims to another hearing.
The property manager and the owner had not received the tenant’s application and supporting documents. The tenant’s application is file number 5463429. I will issue an adjournment order for the tenants claims under that file number. Landlord’s claims:

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an exit inspection and photos to show the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photos show the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants accept this but say they were told by the landlord not to bother with the cleaning as there would be a renovation done anyway.
The landlord denies this and says that other than stripping and replacing the kitchen, bathroom and laundry, the remaining house was only going to be repainted. The painters would need a clean surface to paint the walls and ceilings.
The landlord was a professional cleaner and so had to do the work himself. The landlord provided a break down of the costs he said he incurred cleaning the property. The walls and ceilings were very dirty and would have taken a long time to clean. I am satisfied that the landlord did spend the time cleaning the property.
The landlord has provided an invoice for $$937.50 for cleaning costs. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the cleaning costs.
The landlord has claimed for an oven clean and has provided photos to show the unclean condition of the oven. However, the landlord has not produced an invoice for the cost of cleaning the oven. Standard of proof:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted 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.
I cannot award the cost of the oven cleaning as I have no proof that the landlord has incurred this cost. I am dismissing the claim for the oven clean.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Left an incinerator on the property and damaged the lawns. -Damaged the wall in the shed. a lawn and removing an incinerator and
The landlord is claiming the cost of restoring the lawn, removing an incinerator, and repairing a hole in the shed. However, I note that the tenancy ended 9 months ago, and the landlord has not yet carried out this work.
The Tribunal cannot award compensation for work that has not been completed, as there is no evidence of actual loss or expense incurred. If the landlord wishes to claim these costs, they must provide evidence that the work has been done and the amount paid. As the work has not been undertaken, these claims are declined.
The bond centre is to refund the bond to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
The landlord has applied for suppression of his name and details and as he has been largely successful, I am granting suppression.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The parties will be advised in writing of the next date and time for the tenants claims to be dealt with. The hearing will be a 320 minute, in person hearing scheduled before another adjudicator at the Palmerston North District Court.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5340524 — net $505.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$937.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$505.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$505.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Amanda Jones and Brayden Jones must pay [The landlord/s] $505.50 immediately for cleaning costs and reimbursement of the filing fee, as calculated and shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$937.50 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$965.50 Minus Bond-$460.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$505.50
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $460.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for restoring the lawns, removing the incinerator and repairing the shed wall.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a tenancy that commenced in 2010 and terminated on 18 May 2025. The landlord had issued the tenants with a 90 days’ notice to terminate as he had wanted to do a renovation on the property.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
On 10 March 2026 the tenants filed a counter claim. I had both applications before me at this hearing, but it was decided to deal solely with the landlord application and adjourn the tenants claims to another hearing.
The property manager and the owner had not received the tenant’s application and supporting documents. The tenant’s application is file number 5463429. I will issue an adjournment order for the tenants claims under that file number. Landlord’s claims:

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided an exit inspection and photos to show the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. The photos show the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The tenants accept this but say they were told by the landlord not to bother with the cleaning as there would be a renovation done anyway.
The landlord denies this and says that other than stripping and replacing the kitchen, bathroom and laundry, the remaining house was only going to be repainted. The painters would need a clean surface to paint the walls and ceilings.
The landlord was a professional cleaner and so had to do the work himself. The landlord provided a break down of the costs he said he incurred cleaning the property. The walls and ceilings were very dirty and would have taken a long time to clean. I am satisfied that the landlord did spend the time cleaning the property.
The landlord has provided an invoice for $$937.50 for cleaning costs. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for the cleaning costs.
The landlord has claimed for an oven clean and has provided photos to show the unclean condition of the oven. However, the landlord has not produced an invoice for the cost of cleaning the oven. Standard of proof:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted 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.
I cannot award the cost of the oven cleaning as I have no proof that the landlord has incurred this cost. I am dismissing the claim for the oven clean.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Left an incinerator on the property and damaged the lawns. -Damaged the wall in the shed. a lawn and removing an incinerator and
The landlord is claiming the cost of restoring the lawn, removing an incinerator, and repairing a hole in the shed. However, I note that the tenancy ended 9 months ago, and the landlord has not yet carried out this work.
The Tribunal cannot award compensation for work that has not been completed, as there is no evidence of actual loss or expense incurred. If the landlord wishes to claim these costs, they must provide evidence that the work has been done and the amount paid. As the work has not been undertaken, these claims are declined.
The bond centre is to refund the bond to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.
The landlord has applied for suppression of his name and details and as he has been largely successful, I am granting suppression.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The parties will be advised in writing of the next date and time for the tenants claims to be dealt with. The hearing will be a 320 minute, in person hearing scheduled before another adjudicator at the Palmerston North District Court.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340524 — Cleanliness at 7 Pencarrow Street, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340524 — Cleanliness at 7 Pencarrow Street, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412

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

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