Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5341675 — Cleanliness at Room A, Unit/Flat 6, 246 St George Street, Papatoetoe,
Published 20 January 2026 · Application 5341675
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
L Ryken
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $4,971.45
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$1,360.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $3,611.45
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Replace carpet | $740.60 | Replace carpet | |
| Painting | $1,121.25 | Painting | |
| Replace curtains | $410.55 | Replace curtains | |
| Replace bathroom vanity | $1,055.70 | Replace bathroom vanity | |
| Replace mattress | $459.80 | Replace mattress | |
| Replace mini fridge | $174.30 | Replace mini fridge | |
| Rubbish removal | $465.75 | Rubbish removal | |
| Cleaning | $253.00 | Cleaning | |
| Replace couch | $262.50 | Replace couch | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $3,611.45 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $3,611.45 |
Claims and awards for application 5341675 — net $3,611.45 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Replace carpet
- Amount
- $740.60
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace carpet
Painting
- Amount
- $1,121.25
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Painting
Replace curtains
- Amount
- $410.55
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace curtains
Replace bathroom vanity
- Amount
- $1,055.70
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace bathroom vanity
Replace mattress
- Amount
- $459.80
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace mattress
Replace mini fridge
- Amount
- $174.30
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace mini fridge
Rubbish removal
- Amount
- $465.75
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rubbish removal
Cleaning
- Amount
- $253.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Replace couch
- Amount
- $262.50
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace couch
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $3,611.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $3,611.45
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Maryanne Aroha Tapara must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited $3,611.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,360.00 (6284232-006) to Wolfbrook Property Management Limited immediately.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing on 20 January 2026. The tenant did not.
- The landlord withdrew their claim for rent arrears, which have been paid.
- The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy. The landlord also claims the tenant did not comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks compensation and refund of the bond.
- As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred during the tenancy?
The law
- 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 the did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 1
- Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 2
- The purpose of compensation is to restore the landlord to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. The landlord must not be any better or worse off. To achieve this, there may need to be a reduction to the total amount of compensation sought to reflect betterment and depreciation. This is particularly the case where full replacement or reinstatement has been undertaken. Carpet
- The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any stains or marks to the carpets. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show numerous stains and marks to the carpet. A patch of carpet is also missing in the lounge. On the balance of probabilities, I find the carpet was 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
- The landlord gave evidence that they sought the opinion of a professional carpet cleaner who advised cleaning was unlikely to remove the stains. I accept the landlord’s evidence. The stains are numerous. Some stains are also quite large, and others are very prominent. It was reasonable for the landlord to replace the carpet in these circumstances.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,058.00 (including GST) to replace the carpet.
- The landlord gave evidence the carpet was 9 years old at the end of the tenancy. This means it was at the end of its estimated useful lifespan according to Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates – IR265. In saying that, I accept the landlord’s evidence that the carpet was visually in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy. I find a reduction of 30% to reflect betterment and depreciation to be reasonable in these circumstances.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the carpet is granted for $740.60. Internal painting and bathroom door handle
- The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the walls are nicely painted. No marks, staining or dents are present. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show numerous marks to the walls and ceiling. The marks look like white paint has been applied to the walls and ceiling. There is also a dent in the wall in the bathroom. On the balance of probabilities, I find the walls and ceiling were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
- The landlord also claims the bathroom door handle was damaged during the tenancy. The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the handle is pulling away from the door. I am not convinced this damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The landlord gave evidence the door handle was most likely 9 years old at the end of the tenancy. A bathroom door handle is used regularly on a daily basis. Over time, it is reasonably foreseeable that it might begin to pull away from the door. No evidence of unreasonable use was submitted by the landlord. The landlord has not proven the damage exceeds fair wear and tear.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,725.00 (including GST) to paint the inside of the premises and fix the bathroom doorhandle. The tenant is only responsible for cost of painting, not fix the door handle. A reduction also needs to be made to reflect betterment and depreciation. The landlord gave evidence the premises have not been painted since 2016. I find a reduction of 35% to be reasonable.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation to paint the inside of the premises is granted for $1,121.25. Curtains
- The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the curtains are in good condition. The photographs taken at the end show they have been damaged. The netting has been removed and parts of the curtain have large tears in them. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the curtains were damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $586.50 (including GST) to replace the curtains. The landlord gave evidence the curtains were installed in 2016. They were 9 years old at the end of the tenancy. There needs to be a reduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. I find 30% to be reasonable.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the curtains is granted for $410.55. Bathroom vanity
- The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the bathroom vanity is in good condition. No damage is apparent. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show a large chunk is missing from the right side of the vanity. There is also a large crack. I find this damage occurred during the tenancy. It exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,242.00 (including GST) to replace the vanity. Considering the nature and extent of the damage, replacement was reasonable. The missing chunk is large, and it is unlikely the vanity could have been repaired.
- The landlord gave evidence the vanity was approximately 9 years old. There needs to be a reduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. A bathroom vanity most likely has a longer estimated useful lifespan than carpet and curtains. This is because it is made from more durable materials. Therefore, I find a reduction of 15% to be reasonable.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $1,055.70. Kitchen shelf
- The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the shelving in the kitchen is in good condition. In contrast, the photographs taken at the end show one of the shelves is damaged. The laminate has peeled off and appears to have been damaged by water. On the balance of probabilities, I find the kitchen shelf was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $264.50 (including GST) to repair the shelf.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $264.50. I do not make an adjustment for betterment and depreciation, because a small, partial repair was completed, as opposed to full replacement or reinstatement. Bed mattress and base
- The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the bed mattress and base to be in good condition. No stains are present on the mattress. The photographs taken at the end show the mattress has been heavily stained. The tenancy was 6 years long. Whilst some minor staining might be expected, the staining in this case exceeds fair wear and tear. There are multiple large stains on the mattress. On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the mattress was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
- The landlord also claims the bed base was broken however, the photographs do not prove this. The photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy only show the mattress, not the bed base. The landlord claims one leg was missing. If this were the case, I consider such damage to most likely be fair wear and tear, given the bed base was at least 9 years old at the end of the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, I am not convinced the bed base was damaged during the tenancy or that any damage exceeds fair wear and tear.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $919.60 to replace the mattress and bed base. The tenant is only responsible for replacing the mattress. There also needs to be a reduction for betterment and depreciation, as the mattress was 9 years old at the end of the tenancy. I find a reduction of 50% to be reasonable.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the mattress is granted for $459.80. Mini fridge
- The landlord provided a mini fridge with the tenancy. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the outside of the mini fridge only. It appears to be in good condition. The photographs taken at the end show the inside of the mini fridge. The door for the freezer section has been removed and is sitting on top of the kitchen benchtop. A couple of trays also appear to be missing. The landlord gave evidence the freezer door and trays were all present at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence.
- On the balance of probabilities, I find the mini fridge was damaged during the tenancy. The damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $249.00 to replace the mini fridge. A reduction needs to be made to reflect betterment and depreciation. The landlord gave evidence the mini fridge was most likely 9 years old, which means it was at the end of its estimated useful lifespan according to Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates – IR265. I find a reduction of 30% to be reasonable.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $174.30. Rubbish removal
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $465.75 for rubbish removal. This relates to the cost to dispose of the mattress, bed base, old carpet, vanity and kitchen benchtop. The landlord incurred this cost due to the tenant’s breach and therefore, the tenant is responsible for reimbursing the landlord.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation of $465.75 is granted.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
The law
- At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and leave behind all chattels provided by the landlord for the benefit of the tenant. 3
- “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 4 It does not mean commercially clean, 5 spotless 6 or to a hotel or motel standard. 7 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 8 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii) & (v). 4 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 6 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 8 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Cleaning
- The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy prove the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The floors have not been vacuumed or mopped. The kitchen and bathroom are dirty.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $253.00 (including GST) for cleaning.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $253.00. Television
- The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show a wall mounted television (TV) was provided with the tenancy. The photographs taken at the end show it is missing. I find the tenant did not leave the TV behind at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $354.95 to replace the TV. A reduction needs to be made for betterment and depreciation. The estimated useful lifespan of a TV is 5 years according to Inland Revenue’s General Depreciation Rates – IR265. I find a reduction of 30% to be reasonable.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $248.46. Couch
- The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show a couch was provided with the tenancy. The couch is missing in the photographs taken at the end. I find the tenant did not leave the couch behind at the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord submitted an invoice for $375.00 to replace the couch. The landlord gave evidence the couch was most likely 9 years old at the end of the tenancy. There needs to be a reduction to reflect betterment and depreciation. I find 30% to be reasonable.
- The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $262.50. Air fryer
- The landlord claims a benchtop oven was provided at the beginning of the tenancy and missing at the end. The landlord replaced it with an air fryer and submitted an invoice for $144.00.
- The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show a benchtop oven in the kitchen, only a kettle and microwave. The entry inspection report does not note anything next to the headings “hot plate/stove top” or “oven.” The landlord took over this tenancy part way through the tenancy and was not the original landlord at the beginning. In all of the circumstances, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities a benchtop oven was provided at the beginning of the tenancy. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. Filing fee
- Because Wolfbrook Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s17, s40(1), s40(2), s5, s6, s9
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
- WOLFBROOK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5341675?
The tribunal order states: Maryanne Aroha Tapara must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited
How much money was awarded in case 5341675?
Cleaning: $253.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,121.25 awarded to landlord; Replace Bathroom Vanity: $1,055.70 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet: $740.60 awarded to landlord; Replace Couch: $262.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $410.55 awarded to landlord; Replace Mattress: $459.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Mini Fridge: $174.30 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $465.75 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341675?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341675?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12993655-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.