What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343201 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 5343201?

Cleaning: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $488.75 awarded to landlord; Weeding: $70.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343201?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13100427-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343201 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 5343201?

Cleaning: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $488.75 awarded to landlord; Weeding: $70.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343201?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13100427-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343201 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343201 — net $1,289.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Painting	$488.75	Painting
cleaning	$110.00	cleaning
Weeding	$70.00	Weeding
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$1,289.33
Bond	$1,230.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,289.33

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343201 — net $1,289.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Painting	$488.75	Painting
cleaning	$110.00	cleaning
Weeding	$70.00	Weeding
Filing fee	$28.00	Filing fee
Net award	$1,289.33
Bond	$1,230.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,289.33

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names of all parties.
The Landlord has partly succeeded in their application, as per the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1230.67 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $696.75 [The tenant/s]: $533.92 DescriptionLandlord Painting$488.75 cleaning$110.00 Weeding Filing fee $70.00 $28.00 Total award in favour of landlord$696.75

Reasons

Both parties attended the two hearings in this matter.
The landlord applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The compensation sought was $149.60 for costs for breaking the tenancy early, $140 for weeding, $110 for cleaning and $977.50 for painting some walls.
The tenant applied for return of their bond and claimed the premises were mouldy.
At the end of the first hearing of this matter, I made orders by consent dispensing with parts of the landlord’s application and that the amounts set out in the table below were agreed to be paid to the landlord from the bond. 1 DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 7.8.25$835.71 Water rates$304.02 Early termination tenancy costs$149.60 Total award$1,289.33
This left the landlord’s claims for $140 for weeding, $110 for cleaning and $977.50 for painting walls and the tenant’s application for the balance of the bond to be returned to them.
The matter was adjourned for: a. the landlord to submit a detailed entry inspection report, including all photographs showing the condition of the property at the outset of the tenancy, as well as the invoice for the painting work allegedly required on the four damaged walls. b. The tenant to obtain a statement or letter from her supporting witness regarding the condition of the gardens at the end of the tenancy.
I heard the balance of the matter on 5 February 2026. Burden of proof
Before I go on to deal with the matter, I first comment on the relevant burden of proof.
The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the 1 with the balance of the bond of $1230.67 to remain at the Bond Centre balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more probable than not.
Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and reports and photographs can be an important part of discharging this burden.
The parties must collect the relevant evidence they rely on and produce that evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing. It is not for the tribunal to extract or locate the evidence, or to hunt down and call witnesses itself. They must then make submissions in support of the claim.
Ultimately, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, in practical terms this means that: 2 ...[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. The claim for cleaning and weeding costs
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.
The tenancy agreement contained a clause in it which said: Lawns and Gardens - The Tenant agrees to keep the Property including lawns and gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition free from rubbish and papers. The Tenant also agrees not to damage or remove any tree, shrub or bush from the Property. The Tenant agrees to keep the lawns and gardens weeded and in a generally tidy condition. The Tenant shall be responsible for the removal of garden waste.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3
The tenant's obligation is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy DC Waitakere 233/02, 12 April 2002, at [7]. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
In Ace Property Management v Owens 4 , the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonable tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters. The weeding
The Landlord submitted photos showing the exterior of the property at the outset of the tenancy, when compared with the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted a photo which showed there were weeds coming up through a shrub.
[The tenant/s] says she and her husband did do the weeding when the tenancy came to end. She says they thoroughly did the lawns and laid sand over an area of the lawn she and her husband had been driving over. She supplied a witness statement supporting this. 5
The landlord does not dispute the tenant did this work however he has provided a photograph corroborating the submissions that further weeding was required at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied there was some further garden work required at the end of the tenancy but I do not consider the amount claimed to be reasonable for the further weeding work that was required. I award $70 for further gardening work, which I consider to be a reasonable sum for what I have been shown was required. I accept and find that there was a small amount of further weeding required and that the tenants were therefore in breach of their obligations. The cleaning
The landlord submitted photos corroborating the claim for cleaning costs. This additional cleaning was largely for the shower glass and the extractor fan.
The photographs show the extractor fan in a filthy condition and soap scum on the shower glass. 4 DC Wellington, CIV 2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008 5 [The landlord’s representative] said at the hearing he had not seen some of the supporting material of the tenants prior to the hearing but declined the opportunity to review that information for comment.
The landlord said he raised these particular issues with the tenant specifically as part of a pre-exit inspection in order to give them a heads up as to the cleaning work that would be required.
The landlord said there is no question they cleaned the rest of the house.
The tenant submitted that on the day they moved in, the extractor fan was in the same condition. She has no photographic evidence verifying that.
She submits she has also incurred cleaning costs at the exit. She said she did not get the chance to go back and remedy the additional items.
The landlord does not need to give a tenant the opportunity to go back and clean after they have exited, if the tenancy has by then come to an end. I accept the landlord’s evidence he did tell the tenants what would be required. This was not challenged.
I accept that there was further cleaning required and therefor that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. I consider the amount claimed to be reasonable for this sort of work. The claim for $110 is therefore allowed in favour of the landlord. The repainting of the walls
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.
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 landlord submitted that the house was newly painted and carpeted before the tenants moved in. He says that the cost of repainting damage to the walls in the form of multiple scuff marks was $977.50 and submitted an invoice for the same.
The landlord said that there were scribble marks on some of the walls, and that on one wall there were 40 scuff marks.
The tenant submits that these are just wear and tear marks. None of them were deliberate or intentional. She claims this was just careless or accidental damage. 6
I accept the tenant’s submission that this was a three year tenancy, and some wall marks and other wear and tear are to be expected in that time frame.
I consider there are parts of the walls where the marks are clearly simple wear and tear. In other parts, there are so many marks it is impossible for me to accept they were not deliberate, in the sense referred to in Guo.
I consider the appropriate course to allow half the amount claimed in favour of the landlord. I consider this sum reasonably compensates the landlord for the extent of the marks that were deliberately placed there.
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. Mould
The tenant advanced a claim that the premises were mouldy.
Under s 45 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes. A landlord must also comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 7
The obligation of the landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee a latent and unobservable defect before it causes damage (see Barfoot & Thompson v Casey. 8 ) Further, a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises and the need for repair. 9
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord's obligation is to then repair within a reasonable time after knowledge of the need for repair. 10
The tenant submitted a photograph of the ceiling of the laundry which shows some mould over it. She said however she was unable to keep the window of the laundry open when the tenants were out because it was not safe. 6 I note I was not given any details about the landlord’s insurance. 7 Section 45 of the RTA 8 DC Auckland CIV 2005 004 1762, at [28] 9 S 40(1)(d) of the RTA, Vu v Hutchings [2016 ] NZTT 4054247, at [13] 10 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV 2009 085 1431, at [15]
I cannot rule out the possibility the mould has developed because of the level of moisture in the air, due to the air not circulating.
The landlord was frustrated about the mould claim. He claims the tenant’s husband contact him about mould but when he chased him up to ensure the surfaces were being wiped, he never got any reply.
There is a lack of any real corroborating evidence in support of this claim, which I dismiss.
Because the landlord has mainly succeeded with the claim, I reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties have had a measure of success overall, so I award name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343201 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343201 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions