What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344482 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 5344482?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344482?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344482?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12788424-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344482 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 5344482?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344482?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344482?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12788424-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 110 Bayswater Avenue, Bayswater, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344482 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,950.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy ended on 4 September 2025. The tenants have applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The parties have attended mediation and some agreements were reached. We had a hearing to decide if the tenants should pay $750 for repairing the floor, $750 for painting over repairs, and $450 for additional cleaning.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably 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 RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
Both parties provided me with photos taken at the final inspection and after the tenants carried out more cleaning. The invoice from the cleaner is itemised but does not specify amounts per item. The tenants submitted they were being held to a higher standard because the house was brand new when they moved in. The landlord said the two ovens in particular and 12 lights in the lounge/dining area were not left in a reasonable condition.
It seems to me we have reached a position where it is routinely expected that tenants will clean every surface in the tenancy premises at the end of the tenancy. This is not what is required by the RTA. The RTA does not use the words “as they found it”,” very clean” or “as new” when deciding how a tenancy should be left. The law makers chose the words reasonably clean.
I find the stains and mark inside the ovens to be expected after almost two years of use. These marks do not mean the oven was not reasonably clean.
I find the presence of fly spots on the ceilings and light fittings to be fair wear and tear. Cleaning ceilings and fittings on the ceilings between tenancies is maintenance, which is a landlord responsibility.
I find the landlord has not proved the house was still unreasonable after the tenants did the extra cleaning. The tenants do not have to pay for the cleaning invoice.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for repairs. The 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. The step
The landlord submitted there was significant damage to the edge of one step in the entryway. The step is made from engineered wood. There appears to be a chip in the wood. The tenants said the damage was about the size of a fingernail and was reasonable wear and tear. Both parties had spoken to experts, but I was not provided with any independent evidence. The photos show a small chip right on the edge of the step. Nothing in the photos suggests there was careless or intentional damage. It seems most likely to me the chip was the result of normal wear and wear. The tenants do not have to pay for repairs to the step. The painting
The claim for painting is $750 for painting over repairs. The tenants had a baby gate in the stairwell which caused some damage. The tenants had this repaired by a handyman who does work for a property management company but were given strict instructions by the owner not to paint. The tenants left two hooks where they had a mirror in a toilet and a piece of art in the entry way. There were other areas where paint had been knocked and there were some marks on the walls. There was also a dent in the stairwell which must have been from the movers. The invoice from the painter is not itemised and is for $1,400.
I find it was unreasonable for the owner to refuse to allow the tenants to complete their own repair process. If the work was not up to standard the landlord could have brought a claim. It was also unreasonable of the landlord to expect the tenants to pay for whole walls to be painted. There is no reason why the hooks could not have been left for the next tenants. It seems most likely to me the dent in the stairwell not careless or intentional damage. I find the other marks on the walls to be fair wear and tear. This means the tenants do not have to pay for painting. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords challenge the bond at the end of a tenancy.
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,950.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy ended on 4 September 2025. The tenants have applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The parties have attended mediation and some agreements were reached. We had a hearing to decide if the tenants should pay $750 for repairing the floor, $750 for painting over repairs, and $450 for additional cleaning.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably 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 RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
Both parties provided me with photos taken at the final inspection and after the tenants carried out more cleaning. The invoice from the cleaner is itemised but does not specify amounts per item. The tenants submitted they were being held to a higher standard because the house was brand new when they moved in. The landlord said the two ovens in particular and 12 lights in the lounge/dining area were not left in a reasonable condition.
It seems to me we have reached a position where it is routinely expected that tenants will clean every surface in the tenancy premises at the end of the tenancy. This is not what is required by the RTA. The RTA does not use the words “as they found it”,” very clean” or “as new” when deciding how a tenancy should be left. The law makers chose the words reasonably clean.
I find the stains and mark inside the ovens to be expected after almost two years of use. These marks do not mean the oven was not reasonably clean.
I find the presence of fly spots on the ceilings and light fittings to be fair wear and tear. Cleaning ceilings and fittings on the ceilings between tenancies is maintenance, which is a landlord responsibility.
I find the landlord has not proved the house was still unreasonable after the tenants did the extra cleaning. The tenants do not have to pay for the cleaning invoice.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are claims for repairs. The 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. The step
The landlord submitted there was significant damage to the edge of one step in the entryway. The step is made from engineered wood. There appears to be a chip in the wood. The tenants said the damage was about the size of a fingernail and was reasonable wear and tear. Both parties had spoken to experts, but I was not provided with any independent evidence. The photos show a small chip right on the edge of the step. Nothing in the photos suggests there was careless or intentional damage. It seems most likely to me the chip was the result of normal wear and wear. The tenants do not have to pay for repairs to the step. The painting
The claim for painting is $750 for painting over repairs. The tenants had a baby gate in the stairwell which caused some damage. The tenants had this repaired by a handyman who does work for a property management company but were given strict instructions by the owner not to paint. The tenants left two hooks where they had a mirror in a toilet and a piece of art in the entry way. There were other areas where paint had been knocked and there were some marks on the walls. There was also a dent in the stairwell which must have been from the movers. The invoice from the painter is not itemised and is for $1,400.
I find it was unreasonable for the owner to refuse to allow the tenants to complete their own repair process. If the work was not up to standard the landlord could have brought a claim. It was also unreasonable of the landlord to expect the tenants to pay for whole walls to be painted. There is no reason why the hooks could not have been left for the next tenants. It seems most likely to me the dent in the stairwell not careless or intentional damage. I find the other marks on the walls to be fair wear and tear. This means the tenants do not have to pay for painting. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
There is an application for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because they are the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords challenge the bond at the end of a tenancy.
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344482 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 110 Bayswater Avenue, Bayswater,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344482 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 110 Bayswater Avenue, Bayswater,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions