What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352661 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 5352661?

Cleaning: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352661?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12732509-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5352661 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 5352661?

Cleaning: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5352661?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5352661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12732509-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

56 Scoria Crescent, Stonefields, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5352661 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352661 — net $305.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Curtain cleaning (by consent	$333.50		Curtain cleaning (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$333.50	$28.00
Net award	$305.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$305.50

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 $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Gao and Mr Chappel appeared on behalf of the landlord.
These claims relate to the tenancy of a three-bedroom terrace style home. The property was new at the start of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 23 September 2023 and ended on 7 August 2025.
The tenants filed a claim on 17 September 2025 seeking refund of their bond, less a deduction of $333.50 for curtain cleaning, which they accepted should be deducted.
The landlord filed a claim on 25 September 2025 seeking compensation from the bond as follows: a. Curtain cleaning - $265.65 (but updated to $333.50) b. Floor cleaning - $517.50 c. Wooden floor repair - $1725.00 Curtains
The tenants accepted liability for the curtain cleaning.
The order that the tenants pay the landlord $333.50 for curtain cleaning is made by consent. Floor cleaning
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 (RTA).
The landlord said that they did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy as there were footprints and marks on the wooden laminate floor.
The landlord produced photos from the end of the tenancy showing some marks in the entrance hall and lounge.
The landlord produced an invoice for floor cleaning in the amount of $517.50 for 25 square metres of “deep cleaning and scrubbing of floors using industrial- grade scrubbing machines and non-abrasive cleaning solutions” ($460) and “vacuum and mop only in lounge and hallway” ($50.00).
The tenants said that they cleaned the property themselves and also arranged for professional cleaners. They say that the property was left clean and tidy and that they have met their obligations. They produced photos that they took themselves at the end of the tenancy which show the property to be in good condition.
In considering this claim I remind myself that tenants do not need to leave a property perfectly spotless and ready for new tenants to move into. They only need to leave the property “reasonably clean and tidy” overall. It is expected that landlords will need to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies.
Having reviewed the photos I consider that the property as left reasonably clean and tidy overall. The marks on the floor appear very minor and are across a very small area. In my view, despite these minor marks, the tenants have left the property reasonably clean and tidy.
The claim for floor cleaning is not proven and is dismissed.

Are the tenants 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.
The landlord said that the tenants caused damage to the laminate flooring in the kitchen/dining area.
The landlord produced photos showing some scraping to the laminate. The landlord produced a quote in the amount of $1,725.00 for the following work: “Damages in the centre kitchen area and beside wall. Remove dark spotting. Film area, color and apply new clear coat.”
The tenants say that the damage is fair wear and tear. They said that they had a dining table and chairs which they used as normal during their two-year tenancy.
I have carefully reviewed the photos filed in evidence. The scrapes are barely visible in the main photos of the kitchen/dining but are visible on some close-up photos. The close-up photos show what appears to be multiple darker spots spread sporadically across some sections of boards, and some fairly minor spots/scrapes across the width of one and a half floor boards in one small area.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Kitchens and dining areas are high use areas where it is expected that tenants will set up a dining table and chairs which they will use multiple times a day. Some wear and tear is to be expected in such areas, particularly on laminate flooring which is often not as durable as other types of flooring.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the laminate flooring is not proven and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants had accepted liability for the curtain cleaning. They have successfully defended the landlord’s other claims. The tenants are the successful party.
I have therefore reimbursed the filing fee and have made an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5352661 — net $305.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Curtain cleaning (by consent	$333.50		Curtain cleaning (by consent
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$333.50	$28.00
Net award	$305.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$305.50

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 $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Gao and Mr Chappel appeared on behalf of the landlord.
These claims relate to the tenancy of a three-bedroom terrace style home. The property was new at the start of the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 23 September 2023 and ended on 7 August 2025.
The tenants filed a claim on 17 September 2025 seeking refund of their bond, less a deduction of $333.50 for curtain cleaning, which they accepted should be deducted.
The landlord filed a claim on 25 September 2025 seeking compensation from the bond as follows: a. Curtain cleaning - $265.65 (but updated to $333.50) b. Floor cleaning - $517.50 c. Wooden floor repair - $1725.00 Curtains
The tenants accepted liability for the curtain cleaning.
The order that the tenants pay the landlord $333.50 for curtain cleaning is made by consent. Floor cleaning
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 (RTA).
The landlord said that they did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy as there were footprints and marks on the wooden laminate floor.
The landlord produced photos from the end of the tenancy showing some marks in the entrance hall and lounge.
The landlord produced an invoice for floor cleaning in the amount of $517.50 for 25 square metres of “deep cleaning and scrubbing of floors using industrial- grade scrubbing machines and non-abrasive cleaning solutions” ($460) and “vacuum and mop only in lounge and hallway” ($50.00).
The tenants said that they cleaned the property themselves and also arranged for professional cleaners. They say that the property was left clean and tidy and that they have met their obligations. They produced photos that they took themselves at the end of the tenancy which show the property to be in good condition.
In considering this claim I remind myself that tenants do not need to leave a property perfectly spotless and ready for new tenants to move into. They only need to leave the property “reasonably clean and tidy” overall. It is expected that landlords will need to do some additional cleaning in between tenancies.
Having reviewed the photos I consider that the property as left reasonably clean and tidy overall. The marks on the floor appear very minor and are across a very small area. In my view, despite these minor marks, the tenants have left the property reasonably clean and tidy.
The claim for floor cleaning is not proven and is dismissed.

Are the tenants 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.
The landlord said that the tenants caused damage to the laminate flooring in the kitchen/dining area.
The landlord produced photos showing some scraping to the laminate. The landlord produced a quote in the amount of $1,725.00 for the following work: “Damages in the centre kitchen area and beside wall. Remove dark spotting. Film area, color and apply new clear coat.”
The tenants say that the damage is fair wear and tear. They said that they had a dining table and chairs which they used as normal during their two-year tenancy.
I have carefully reviewed the photos filed in evidence. The scrapes are barely visible in the main photos of the kitchen/dining but are visible on some close-up photos. The close-up photos show what appears to be multiple darker spots spread sporadically across some sections of boards, and some fairly minor spots/scrapes across the width of one and a half floor boards in one small area.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Kitchens and dining areas are high use areas where it is expected that tenants will set up a dining table and chairs which they will use multiple times a day. Some wear and tear is to be expected in such areas, particularly on laminate flooring which is often not as durable as other types of flooring.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the laminate flooring is not proven and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenants had accepted liability for the curtain cleaning. They have successfully defended the landlord’s other claims. The tenants are the successful party.
I have therefore reimbursed the filing fee and have made an order for name suppression pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352661 — Cleanliness at 56 Scoria Crescent, Stonefields, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5352661 — Cleanliness at 56 Scoria Crescent, Stonefields, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions