What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341121 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $317.50 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5341121?

Cleaning: $289.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341121?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12889209-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341121 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $317.50 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5341121?

Cleaning: $289.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341121?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12889209-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341121 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341121 — net $317.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$289.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$317.50
Bond	$741.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$317.50

Order

[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $317.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $741.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $317.50 [The tenant/s]: $423.50

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The property manager], representing the landlord, and [The tenant/s], all attended the video conference/teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 16 June 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. Cleaning
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photographs that they said were taken on 17 June 2025, which they said showed the tenants left the property in a rather grubby condition, with cleaning needed of the walls, skirtings, inside washing machine, toilet, fan, windowsills, rangehood and filter, microwave, cupboards and drawers, dishwasher and fridge, oven hinges, floor, cabinetry and shower.
The tenants provided videos of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy that appear to show the premises left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, though the videos were not close-up photographs such as those provided by the landlord.
The tenants admitted that the rangehood and microwave were likely not left in a clean condition and were willing to pay a reasonable cost for cleaning those items, which they believed would be around $150.00.
The tenants disputed that there was any evidence to show a requirement for the landlord to professionally clean the carpets, which was included on the cleaning invoice provided by the landlord. The property manager acknowledged she likely had not provided sufficient photographs of the condition of the carpet. The property manager estimated that about $120.00 plus GST of the cleaning invoice was likely apportionable to carpet cleaning. The total invoice for cleaning was for $491.00, which included $76.96 for parking fees by the cleaner. The property manager confirmed that the 2-person cleaning team was at the property doing their work for around 2 ¼ hours. The tenant said they found this invoice excessive given the small size of the apartment.
I find the landlord’s photographs indicate that some further cleaning would have been required of areas such as windowsills, kitchen drawers and a few other areas where the level of cleaning could have been improved to bring it to the standard of a reasonable tenant clean.
The landlord has, I find, provided insufficient evidence of their carpet cleaning claim, which I dismiss. As such, I reduce the cleaning fee of $350.00 (before GST) by $120.00 for carpet cleaning (before GST) to $230.00, before GST or parking fees.
Given the evidence of the landlord’s photographs, the tenant’s videos of the property at the end of the tenancy, and the landlord’s cleaning invoice, as well as the tenant confirming the microwave and rangehood were not left reasonably clean, I find a reasonable cost for cleaning to the level of a tenant standard of reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy is $230.00 plus GST, coming to $264.50. The property manager said Auckland parking prices are expensive, ranging from as low as $2.00 per hour to around $11.00 per hour. I find the cleaner’s parking costs of $76.96 to be excessive for the short time the cleaners were at the property, only around 2 ¼ hours. I allow $25.00 as a reasonable parking fee for the cleaners for this work. Therefore, I find a reasonable cleaning cost, including parking fees of the cleaners to come to a total of $289.50, which I award to the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved. Body Corporate fine for rubbish
The landlord also claimed $250.00 for a fine imposed on the owner of the property by the Body Corporate of the building, for the tenant leaving rubbish in a common area of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a copy of an invoice from the Body Corporate in the amount of $250.00 to this effect and provided photographs of the building’s common area in question, where a monitor was left on the floor of the common area, which was attributed to the tenant.
The tenant did not dispute leaving the monitor on the floor of the common area but disputed the Body Corporate’s jurisdiction or ability to impose a standard fine amount, in contradiction of the Body Corporate Rules for the building. The tenant said they should not have to pay such a fine passed onto them from the owner when the fine was not lawfully imposed on the owner. The tenant remained willing to pay an invoice for actual services performed rather than a standard fine.
The tenant pointed to section 16B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provide that Body Corporate rules that affect a tenant of premises to which that section applies are taken to be terms of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant explained that the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that any fees passed along to the tenant were legitimate and enforceable. The tenant said that neither section 16B of the RTA nor the Body Corporate rules stipulate they can charge fines or penalties, rather only costs incurred to conform with compliance.
The tenant provided a copy of the Body Corporate Rules and pointed to clauses 10 and 30(ii) of the Body Corporate Rules, which provide as follows: Clause 10 “An owner shall not allow litter or rubbish to accumulate on the common property, and the cost incurred in removing any rubbish from or the cleaning of any part of the common property where there is a breach of this Rule shall be borne by the owner responsible.” Clause 30 (ii) “A person who is guilty of a breach of these Rules shall remedy that breach immediately that person becomes aware of it and in any event within 7 days after notice from the Body Corporate requiring that person to do so.”
The tenant said he had asked the Body Corporate to provide him with an invoice of the cost incurred by them in removing the rubbish left but they had not done so. The tenant said the Body Corporate told him they could have charged him more than the amount of the fine imposed for the cost they incurred.
The tenant further said that neither they nor the owner had been provided with an opportunity to remedy the breach within 7 days after being notified of the incident by the Body Corporate. The property manager confirmed the landlord had not been notified by the Body Corporate of an opportunity to remedy the breach, but said the tenant had left the tenancy by then in any event.
The tenant said the penalty fee charged by the Body Corporate was not enforceable and should not have been paid by the landlord or passed along to the tenant.
The Body Corporate rules were incorporated into the tenancy agreement pursuant to section 16B of the RTA.
The landlord said they had not read the Body Corporate rules nor did they have counter submissions to make about the fine imposed by the Body Corporate.
The Body Corporate rules, as provided, do not appear to provide for the imposition of standard fines, but rather the cost incurred for removal of any rubbish or litter from a common area of the property.
Despite a request from the tenant to provide them with an invoice for any cost incurred in removing the monitor from the common area of the property, the Body Corporate would not do so.
A Body Corporate can only charge an owner compensation or reimbursement of the actual cost to remedy the breach.
There is no legal authority for a Body Corporate to impose fines on the body corporate owners. Any fine given can be challenged that it is ultra vires; that is that it is beyond the lawful powers of the body corporate to impose such fines.
As there is no legal authority, any ‘fine’ given by the body corporate is not enforceable against the tenant, and therefore the landlord’s claim for payment of the fine by the tenant fails. As such, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $741.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $28.00 [The tenant/s]: $713.00 Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. Both parties have had partial success in the application, so I grant name suppression to both parties. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) and 95A(4) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5341121 — net $317.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$289.50	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$317.50
Bond	$741.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$317.50

Order

[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $317.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $741.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $317.50 [The tenant/s]: $423.50

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The property manager], representing the landlord, and [The tenant/s], all attended the video conference/teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 16 June 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. Cleaning
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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 said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photographs that they said were taken on 17 June 2025, which they said showed the tenants left the property in a rather grubby condition, with cleaning needed of the walls, skirtings, inside washing machine, toilet, fan, windowsills, rangehood and filter, microwave, cupboards and drawers, dishwasher and fridge, oven hinges, floor, cabinetry and shower.
The tenants provided videos of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy that appear to show the premises left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, though the videos were not close-up photographs such as those provided by the landlord.
The tenants admitted that the rangehood and microwave were likely not left in a clean condition and were willing to pay a reasonable cost for cleaning those items, which they believed would be around $150.00.
The tenants disputed that there was any evidence to show a requirement for the landlord to professionally clean the carpets, which was included on the cleaning invoice provided by the landlord. The property manager acknowledged she likely had not provided sufficient photographs of the condition of the carpet. The property manager estimated that about $120.00 plus GST of the cleaning invoice was likely apportionable to carpet cleaning. The total invoice for cleaning was for $491.00, which included $76.96 for parking fees by the cleaner. The property manager confirmed that the 2-person cleaning team was at the property doing their work for around 2 ¼ hours. The tenant said they found this invoice excessive given the small size of the apartment.
I find the landlord’s photographs indicate that some further cleaning would have been required of areas such as windowsills, kitchen drawers and a few other areas where the level of cleaning could have been improved to bring it to the standard of a reasonable tenant clean.
The landlord has, I find, provided insufficient evidence of their carpet cleaning claim, which I dismiss. As such, I reduce the cleaning fee of $350.00 (before GST) by $120.00 for carpet cleaning (before GST) to $230.00, before GST or parking fees.
Given the evidence of the landlord’s photographs, the tenant’s videos of the property at the end of the tenancy, and the landlord’s cleaning invoice, as well as the tenant confirming the microwave and rangehood were not left reasonably clean, I find a reasonable cost for cleaning to the level of a tenant standard of reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy is $230.00 plus GST, coming to $264.50. The property manager said Auckland parking prices are expensive, ranging from as low as $2.00 per hour to around $11.00 per hour. I find the cleaner’s parking costs of $76.96 to be excessive for the short time the cleaners were at the property, only around 2 ¼ hours. I allow $25.00 as a reasonable parking fee for the cleaners for this work. Therefore, I find a reasonable cleaning cost, including parking fees of the cleaners to come to a total of $289.50, which I award to the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved. Body Corporate fine for rubbish
The landlord also claimed $250.00 for a fine imposed on the owner of the property by the Body Corporate of the building, for the tenant leaving rubbish in a common area of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided a copy of an invoice from the Body Corporate in the amount of $250.00 to this effect and provided photographs of the building’s common area in question, where a monitor was left on the floor of the common area, which was attributed to the tenant.
The tenant did not dispute leaving the monitor on the floor of the common area but disputed the Body Corporate’s jurisdiction or ability to impose a standard fine amount, in contradiction of the Body Corporate Rules for the building. The tenant said they should not have to pay such a fine passed onto them from the owner when the fine was not lawfully imposed on the owner. The tenant remained willing to pay an invoice for actual services performed rather than a standard fine.
The tenant pointed to section 16B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provide that Body Corporate rules that affect a tenant of premises to which that section applies are taken to be terms of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant explained that the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that any fees passed along to the tenant were legitimate and enforceable. The tenant said that neither section 16B of the RTA nor the Body Corporate rules stipulate they can charge fines or penalties, rather only costs incurred to conform with compliance.
The tenant provided a copy of the Body Corporate Rules and pointed to clauses 10 and 30(ii) of the Body Corporate Rules, which provide as follows: Clause 10 “An owner shall not allow litter or rubbish to accumulate on the common property, and the cost incurred in removing any rubbish from or the cleaning of any part of the common property where there is a breach of this Rule shall be borne by the owner responsible.” Clause 30 (ii) “A person who is guilty of a breach of these Rules shall remedy that breach immediately that person becomes aware of it and in any event within 7 days after notice from the Body Corporate requiring that person to do so.”
The tenant said he had asked the Body Corporate to provide him with an invoice of the cost incurred by them in removing the rubbish left but they had not done so. The tenant said the Body Corporate told him they could have charged him more than the amount of the fine imposed for the cost they incurred.
The tenant further said that neither they nor the owner had been provided with an opportunity to remedy the breach within 7 days after being notified of the incident by the Body Corporate. The property manager confirmed the landlord had not been notified by the Body Corporate of an opportunity to remedy the breach, but said the tenant had left the tenancy by then in any event.
The tenant said the penalty fee charged by the Body Corporate was not enforceable and should not have been paid by the landlord or passed along to the tenant.
The Body Corporate rules were incorporated into the tenancy agreement pursuant to section 16B of the RTA.
The landlord said they had not read the Body Corporate rules nor did they have counter submissions to make about the fine imposed by the Body Corporate.
The Body Corporate rules, as provided, do not appear to provide for the imposition of standard fines, but rather the cost incurred for removal of any rubbish or litter from a common area of the property.
Despite a request from the tenant to provide them with an invoice for any cost incurred in removing the monitor from the common area of the property, the Body Corporate would not do so.
A Body Corporate can only charge an owner compensation or reimbursement of the actual cost to remedy the breach.
There is no legal authority for a Body Corporate to impose fines on the body corporate owners. Any fine given can be challenged that it is ultra vires; that is that it is beyond the lawful powers of the body corporate to impose such fines.
As there is no legal authority, any ‘fine’ given by the body corporate is not enforceable against the tenant, and therefore the landlord’s claim for payment of the fine by the tenant fails. As such, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $741.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $28.00 [The tenant/s]: $713.00 Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. Both parties have had partial success in the application, so I grant name suppression to both parties. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) and 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341121 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341121 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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