What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349123 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 5349123?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $144.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $187.60 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Blocked Drain: $79.35 awarded to landlord; Curtains And Track: $310.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Boards: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $24.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $491.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349123?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349123?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615580-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349123 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 5349123?

Cleaning: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $144.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $187.60 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Blocked Drain: $79.35 awarded to landlord; Curtains And Track: $310.00 awarded to landlord; Floor Boards: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $24.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $491.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349123?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349123?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615580-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23A Salisbury Avenue, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5349123 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5349123 — net $1,351.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$600.00	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$144.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,200.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$120.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$491.05	Rubbish removal
Repairs: blocked drain	$79.35	Repairs: blocked drain
Repairs: floor boards	$207.00	Repairs: floor boards
Repairs: curtains and track	$310.00	Repairs: curtains and track
Window repairs	$187.60	Window repairs
Replace furnishings: light bulbs	$24.00	Replace furnishings: light bulbs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,351.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,351.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jazmine Edwardson must pay [The landlord/s] $1,351.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$600.00 Lock/key replacement$144.00 Cleaning$1,200.00 Carpet Cleaning$120.00 Rubbish removal$491.05 Repairs: blocked drain$79.35 Repairs: floor boards$207.00 Repairs: curtains and track$310.00 Window repairs$187.60 Replace furnishings: light bulbs$24.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,391.00 Bond$2,040.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,351.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. It appeared that the tenant had taken what she wanted, left behind everything else and had made no attempt to clean. The carpet in one room had been stained and required cleaning.
The amount claimed for cleaning was for 44 and a half hours at $45.00 per hour. The amount of time spent on cleaning appears excessive and the hourly rate is at the top end of charges for cleaning of this nature.
The Tribunal and District Court decisions over the year have determined that reasonably clean and tidy means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The Tribunal in this area is used to seeing invoices from professional cleaning firms in the range of $450.00 to $1,000.00 for cleaning of a property in this condition and hourly rates of $30.00 to $35.00. The Tribunal concludes that the amount of time spent was to return the property to a higher standard than reasonably clean and tidy as required under the RTA.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum at the higher end of the range it sees regularly for such work. This reflects that the fact the property is a four-bedroom house.
The tenant did not return the keys.
A curtain was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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: a. A curtain track was damaged. b. A towel rail was damaged and removed. c. Two floorboards were broken. d. A drain was blocked by hair pins and hair. e. A window was broken during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The damage is careless damage. The landlord’s insurance excess was $2,150.00. The amounts ordered are less than this excess for each item of damage which were each separate events. Compensation claim for loss of rent
The tenancy ended on 11 August 2025 and the landlord gave evidence that it was only available to rent from 19 September 2025. The landlord has claimed two weeks’ rent in compensation for the period during which the property could not be let due to the condition in which the tenant left the property at the end of the tenancy.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do it, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. The law does not provide for compensation where the damage is considered too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
In this case, there was minor damage to the property and the house required cleaning and rubbish removed. A landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy. A reasonable landlord would foresee in the ordinary course of its business that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance, repairs and cleaning, even if caused by the actions or inaction of a tenant.
A landlord can reasonably expect there to be a period during which the property is untenanted between tenancies as such work is carried out. It is unusual for there to be no break between the end and beginning of a new tenancy and a two-week to four-week period is not unusual. It is part of the cost of being in business as the landlord of residential property.
In this case, there is no evidence as to why the required work took so long or that the four-week period was the tenant’s fault. The work required was relatively routine and could have been completed in a week or two which is a reasonable period for a vacancy between tenancies. The tenant is not responsible for delays caused by the landlord being unable to obtain the service of its preferred contractors. The delay in letting out the property appears reasonable in these circumstances and the landlord’s evidence.
The Tribunal is not persuaded that the tenant is legally responsible for the loss of rent claimed and the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5349123 — net $1,351.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$600.00	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$144.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$1,200.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$120.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$491.05	Rubbish removal
Repairs: blocked drain	$79.35	Repairs: blocked drain
Repairs: floor boards	$207.00	Repairs: floor boards
Repairs: curtains and track	$310.00	Repairs: curtains and track
Window repairs	$187.60	Window repairs
Replace furnishings: light bulbs	$24.00	Replace furnishings: light bulbs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,351.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,351.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Jazmine Edwardson must pay [The landlord/s] $1,351.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$600.00 Lock/key replacement$144.00 Cleaning$1,200.00 Carpet Cleaning$120.00 Rubbish removal$491.05 Repairs: blocked drain$79.35 Repairs: floor boards$207.00 Repairs: curtains and track$310.00 Window repairs$187.60 Replace furnishings: light bulbs$24.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,391.00 Bond$2,040.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,351.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 11 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. It appeared that the tenant had taken what she wanted, left behind everything else and had made no attempt to clean. The carpet in one room had been stained and required cleaning.
The amount claimed for cleaning was for 44 and a half hours at $45.00 per hour. The amount of time spent on cleaning appears excessive and the hourly rate is at the top end of charges for cleaning of this nature.
The Tribunal and District Court decisions over the year have determined that reasonably clean and tidy means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The Tribunal in this area is used to seeing invoices from professional cleaning firms in the range of $450.00 to $1,000.00 for cleaning of a property in this condition and hourly rates of $30.00 to $35.00. The Tribunal concludes that the amount of time spent was to return the property to a higher standard than reasonably clean and tidy as required under the RTA.
The Tribunal has awarded a sum at the higher end of the range it sees regularly for such work. This reflects that the fact the property is a four-bedroom house.
The tenant did not return the keys.
A curtain was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord had to replace light bulbs.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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: a. A curtain track was damaged. b. A towel rail was damaged and removed. c. Two floorboards were broken. d. A drain was blocked by hair pins and hair. e. A window was broken during the tenancy.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The damage is careless damage. The landlord’s insurance excess was $2,150.00. The amounts ordered are less than this excess for each item of damage which were each separate events. Compensation claim for loss of rent
The tenancy ended on 11 August 2025 and the landlord gave evidence that it was only available to rent from 19 September 2025. The landlord has claimed two weeks’ rent in compensation for the period during which the property could not be let due to the condition in which the tenant left the property at the end of the tenancy.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do it, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. The law does not provide for compensation where the damage is considered too remote. Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
In this case, there was minor damage to the property and the house required cleaning and rubbish removed. A landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy. A reasonable landlord would foresee in the ordinary course of its business that there will be periods during which the premises are not available to be let for a variety of reasons, including maintenance, repairs and cleaning, even if caused by the actions or inaction of a tenant.
A landlord can reasonably expect there to be a period during which the property is untenanted between tenancies as such work is carried out. It is unusual for there to be no break between the end and beginning of a new tenancy and a two-week to four-week period is not unusual. It is part of the cost of being in business as the landlord of residential property.
In this case, there is no evidence as to why the required work took so long or that the four-week period was the tenant’s fault. The work required was relatively routine and could have been completed in a week or two which is a reasonable period for a vacancy between tenancies. The tenant is not responsible for delays caused by the landlord being unable to obtain the service of its preferred contractors. The delay in letting out the property appears reasonable in these circumstances and the landlord’s evidence.
The Tribunal is not persuaded that the tenant is legally responsible for the loss of rent claimed and the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5349123 — Cleanliness at 23A Salisbury Avenue, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5349123 — Cleanliness at 23A Salisbury Avenue, Whanganui East, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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