Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5360845 — Cleanliness at 124A Welch Road, Orini, RD 2, Orini 3792
Decided 25 March 2026 · Published 25 March 2026 · Application 5360845
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Orini
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
G Barnett
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,643.75
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,643.75
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $500.00 | Cleaning | |
| Carpet Cleaning | $925.75 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Carpet mat | $190.00 | Carpet mat | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,643.75 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,643.75 |
Claims and awards for application 5360845 — net $1,643.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $925.75
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Carpet mat
- Amount
- $190.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet mat
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,643.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,643.75
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Rana and Navpreet Singh must pay Whyte Professional Property Limited as Agents for Cjm Agriculture Limited - Craig Mckie $1,643.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Ms Whyte appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. The Tribunal was also assisted by a Punjabi speaking interpreter.
- The tenancy was a service tenancy that commenced on 01 Jun 2024 and ended with the tenant’s employment on 28 May 2025.
- On 18 October 2025, the landlord filed a claim.
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for: i. Damage to the bathroom ($8,042.89), ii. Damage to the kitchen ($13,169.80), iii. Failing to leave the carpet reasonably clean / damage ($2,472.75), iv. Failing to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy ($707.25), v. Failing to leave the curtains reasonably clean / damage ($ 1,540.42), vi. Failing to leave the oven reasonably clean ($251.28) vii. In brackets next to each claim is the compensation sought
- The property has been described as a late 1970s to early 1980s one-bedroom farm cottage, consisting of an open plan kitchen / dining/ lounge area, bathroom, a laundry at the entrance, an outdoor room, and a large carport.
- Ms Whyte stated the bathroom had been renovated in 2014. Otherwise, the property appears to retain its original features, notably the kitchen cabinetry. The carpet and vinyl flooring in the kitchen and laundry was one year old at the state of the tenancy. Ms Whyte did not know the age of the vinyl flooring in the bathroom. Damage to bathroom
- The landlord stated that during a tenancy inspection they noted that the floor in the bathroom was regularly wet. They stated that they had raised this with the tenant’s partner, who had advised it had occurred while bathing a small child.
- The landlord stated that at a subsequent inspection on 02 May 2025, when entering the property through the kitchen, they noted that the floor and carpet was wet. This was attributed to the washing machine that had become blocked and overflowed.
- The landlord also noted that the floor in the hallway adjacent to the bathroom was soft. Upon lifting the carpet, they discovered water damaged flooring.
- The landlord stated that the tenant advised the shower cubicle had been leaking. The landlord stated that they had not previously been notified of this. The landlord made a claim to the insurer, who considered that damage had occurred gradually over a prolonged period.
- The insurers assessment had been conducted after repairs had been completed and was based on information provided by the landlord.
- The landlord claims the tenant is liable for the damage firstly because they caused excess water on the bathroom floor while bathing the child, and secondly, having noted the leak from the shower cubicle had not raised it with the landlord thereby making them responsible for the resulting damage.
- The tenant stated that during the 02 May 2025 inspection they had just bathed the child and had not yet wiped up excess water. They stated that the washing machine in the laundry had become blocked only once and coincided with the inspection.
- The tenant denied being aware of any leak to the shower cubicle and pointing it out to the landlord. They stated it was the landlord who had suggested the possible source. They accepted that, once raised, they agreed with the landlord that the water may have come from that area but maintained it was not obvious.
- The tenant also stated that a builder who had inspected the area advised that the leak would not have been obvious and that it was not the tenant’s fault.
- The landlord questioned whether the builder would have said this, noting contractors had been instructed not to discuss liability with tenants.
- The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report which include photographs dated 31 May 2024, and reports for inspections conducted 11 November 2024, 01 January 2025, 02 May 2025, 28 May 2025, and 31 May 2025.
- The landlord has produced an up-close photograph of the hallway carpet which has been lifted exposing the particle flooring underneath showing signs of water damage, and up-close photographs of where the landlord claims the water was leaking from the side of the shower cubicle near the door. Damage to kitchen
- The landlord claims that there was damage to the kitchen cabinet beneath the sink, including the cupboard doors and nearby drawers, which could not be opened or closed easily, with the lowest one being jammed shut. The landlord stated that although the pre tenancy inspection reports show some damage to the cabinetry, that the additional damage evident at the end is greater than fair wear and tear.
- The landlord stated that at the start of the tenancy all drawers opened and closed properly.
- The landlord stated that during an inspection on 01 August 2024, they observed a wet tea towel draped over the cupboard door. The landlord has produced a photograph. The landlord stated the tenant’s partner said this did not matter as the house was old.
- At the end of the tenancy, a plumber identified a leak in the S bend beneath the sink, above the cupboard. The landlord stated that although the damage had not been detected during inspections, it was an area regularly accessed by the tenant, who must have noticed it was wet.
- The landlord also stated that the tenant had placed tape on the bottom edges of the doors and inside edges of the cupboards to prevent the laminate from lifting. The landlord claims the tenant is liable for the damage to the cupboard fronts by placing wet items over them, and for the remaining damage by failing to report an obvious leak.
- The tenant denies responsibility. They stated that the leak was not obvious. They denied that the tea towel shown in the photograph was wet or regularly placed there. They noted that the landlord had peeled the laminate inside the cupboard to expose the damage underneath before taking their photograph. The tenant stated that cabinetry showed signs of fair wear and tear relative to its age at the commencement of the tenancy, and that the tape was already present.
- The tenant produced a short video taken at the end of the tenancy, showing the cupboards and drawers being opened and closed, with the exception of the lower drawer, which they stated never fully opened. Damage to stove element
- The landlord stated that the oven was approximately one year old at the commencement of the tenancy. Around April 2025, the tenant had reported an issue with the elements. The matter was investigated. It was discovered that the sockets into which the stove elements were inserted required re-alignment. The landlord stated that at the time they were of the opinion that this had been caused by misuse and issued a breach notice.
- The landlord stated that in July 2025, after the tenancy had ended and during renovations to the kitchen the stove was removed and re installed. At this point, it was discovered that the elements were not working. The landlord claims that the issue was the same and that the tenant is liable.
- The tenant denies liability and states the elements were working at the end of the tenancy. Damage to curtains
- The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the backs of curtains in the lounge, bedroom, and hallway. The landlord has produced photographs of the curtains in the bedroom and lounge, but not the hallway. The landlord states that the curtains are soiled, or mould stained to the extent that they cannot be cleaned and require replacing.
- The landlord also stated that during inspections the curtains were often drawn and that the tenant failed to ventilate the property properly, contributing to the damage. Law
- To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
- Section 40(1)(d) of the Act states must promptly inform the landlord if they become aware of any damage or repairs needed at the premises. Failure to do so may result in the tenant being liable for any further damage that occurs because the landlord was not made aware and could not address the issue in a timely manner.
- Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
- 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) of the Act.
- 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) of the Act.
- 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.
- In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
- When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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. In calculating betterment and depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their estimated useful lifespan. Analysis and decision – damage
- The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for damage occurring during the tenancy that is more than fair wear and tear, or that the tenant failed to report damage as soon as possible and is therefore liable for subsequent damage.
- Determining whether damage has occurred during the tenancy will involve making an objective before and after assessment.
- I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the flooring outside the bathroom. Based on the photographic evidence, I am not satisfied that the leak from the side of the shower cubicle was apparent during the tenancy.
- I accept the tenant’s evidence that the possibility of the leak was raised by the landlord, and that they agreed that it may have been the source, but that they were not aware that it was leaking. I find it likely that the builder advised the tenant that the leak had occurred gradually and would not have been obvious. This is consistent with the evidence.
- The photographs of the carpet outside the bathroom do not show any clear signs of deterioration. This suggests that the leak was hidden from view. I am also not satisfied that the occasional wet floor from bathing a child caused or contributed to the damage. The damage is localised.
- The flood in the laundry was a one-off event and not associated with the damage outside the bathroom.
- In my view, the damage more likely developed gradually over time and went undetected by both the landlord and the tenant. While I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable.
- I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for damage to the kitchen cabinetry. The pre tenancy inspection report shows fair wear and tear relative to its age, which is at least 40 years old.
- The S bend under the sink was leaking. The damage to the cupboard and the drawers is consistent with that being the likely cause. I accept that the landlord has peeled the laminate back exposing the damage beneath. However, this would not have been visible to an ordinary user of the cupboard.
- While the damage likely occurred during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that the tenant was aware of the leak. In my view, the tea towel draped over the door would not have caused the internal damage to the cupboard and the drawers, which is more consistent with the leak from the S bend that went undetected by both parties until the end of the tenancy.
- Concerning the damage to the stove elements. The invoice from April 2024 refers to the elements not being properly connected and requiring repositioning. The invoice from July 2025 refers to replacement of two faulty oven connector blocks.
- Apart from the landlord’s oral evidence, there is no evidence establishing how this damage occurred. I cannot exclude the possibility that it was due to a fault in which case it would constitute fair wear and tear. There is no clear evidence that the elements were tested at the end of the tenancy. The issue was discovered two months after the tenancy ended, when the oven was reinstalled.
- There is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant is liable, and the claim is dismissed.
- In relation to the curtains, there is no evidence of the condition of the backs of the curtains at the commencement of the tenancy. The Tribunal is therefore unable to conduct a proper before and after comparison. The claim is dismissed.
- Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy – general cleaning and carpet cleaning. Carpet
- The landlord is claiming $1,357.00 for lifting and drying the carpet following the flood on or about 02 May 2025, $925.75 for carpet cleaning and stain treatment, and $190.00 for a mat purchased to cover the worst of the stains in the lounge.
- The landlord states that the carpet was approximately one year old at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The landlord stated that there was no visible staining at the commencement and referred to the pre tenancy inspection report.
- The landlord has produced up close photographs of the carpet taken at the end showing multiple stains throughout.
- The carpet cleaners invoice states that, despite multiple treatments, the stains were unable to be removed.
- The landlord states that they warned the tenant during the tenancy about the carpet and issued breach notices.
- The landlord stated that during inspections they had noted a small child being fed in a highchair on the carpet, without protective covering.
- The landlord stated that they chose not to replace the carpet, but instead had it cleaned and purchased a carpet mat for the lounge.
- The tenant stated that the flood from the laundry was an accident and was reported to the landlord when it occurred, which coincided with the inspection.
- The tenant denied failing to leave the carpet reasonably clean. They produced a short video of them using a carpet cleaning machine, along with photographs of the carpet after cleaning. General cleaning
- The landlord claims that the interior walls throughout the property were covered in a “sticky residue” which they claim was likely caused by boiling milk. The landlord produced up close photographs which they claim show the substance concerned.
- The landlord stated that there were numerous flies and produced up-close photographs showing flies on backs of curtains, fly droppings on some light fittings, grime around the oven controls, and patches of surface mould on walls.
- The landlord is claiming $707.25 to steam and chemically clean all surfaces, including $75.00 for three visits.
- The cleaning claim does not include the bathroom, which was under renovation, or the kitchen.
- The landlord stated that the property was provided in a reasonably clean condition at the commencement of the tenancy, as shown in the pre tenancy inspection report.
- The landlord also claims that one of the smoke alarms was moisture damaged, likely due to the flood on 02 May 2025, and required replacing. That a laundry plug was missing. A bedroom doorstop was broken. The landlord is also claiming for cleaning after repairs had been completed to the bathroom and kitchen, and oven cleaning after it had been repaired in July 2025.
- The tenant produced a short video showing the inside of the property taken when they vacated and deny that they had failed to leave it in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Law
- 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) of the Act.
- The Act 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, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. Analysis and decision
- Concerning the carpet, the cause of the flood in the laundry is unclear. The inspection report from 02 May 2025 records dry clothing in the machine and water on the floor. There is insufficient evidence to determine liability for the flood.
- I prefer the landlord’s evidence as to the condition of the carpet at the end of the tenancy. Their photographs are clearer. Despite the tenant’s carpet cleaning efforts, the staining and soiling was not removed.
- I award the amount claimed for carpet cleaning and the purchasing of the carpet mat.
- Based on the photographic evidence, I am also satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the interior of the property reasonably clean, particularly in relation to the sticky substance on the walls. However, I am not satisfied that the full amount claimed is reasonable for a one-bedroom farm cottage. I award $500.00 toward the cleaning cost.
- Turning to the remaining claims, the tenant denied that the smoke alarm had been damaged by moisture. There is insufficient evidence to establish the tenant is liable for damaging the smoke alarm.
- The tenancy agreement did not contain a chattels list confirming the presence of a laundry plug at the commencement of the tenancy. There is also no evidence supporting the claim for the broken door stop. These claims are dismissed.
- Regarding the claim for cleaning after repairs to the bathroom and kitchen, and oven cleaning after repairs in July 2025, the Tribunal may award compensation for losses that are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach.
- However, in this case, the need for cleaning the bathroom, kitchen, and oven after the repairs does not naturally result from any established breach. Costs
- As the landlord has been partly successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
- The landlord seeks name suppression, the tenant does not.
- Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
- The landlord has not been substantially successful, and no suppression orders are made.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s29, s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(3), s81, s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5360845?
The tribunal order states: Rana and Navpreet Singh must pay Whyte Professional Property Limited as
How much money was awarded in case 5360845?
Cleaning: $925.75 awarded to landlord; Carpet Mat: $190.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360845?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360845?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13338628-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.