How much money was awarded in case 5389965?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389965?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389965?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13232640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5389965?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389965?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389965?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13232640-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389965 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389965 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Rempstone Property Management Limited is to pay $28.00, as reimbursement of the filing fee, to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Sun, representing the landlord, and [Tenant 1] representing both tenants, attended the video conference hearing.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has cross-applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Both parties agreed the tenancy ended on 8 October 2025. Burden of proof and evidence

An applicant must prove their claims on a balance of probabilities, i.e. that it is more likely than not that something occurred. This is called the burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

Where parties dispute an issue, each party must provide additional supporting evidence of their position.

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 statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord claimed $471.50 for cleaning and window cleaning, $184.00 for carpet cleaning and $322.00 for gardening work at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputed that any of these costs were required and said they left the property reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord provided copies of the Ingoing Inspection Report dated 4 December 2024 and the Outgoing Inspection Report dated 9 October 2025. Both inspection reports included numerous photographs of the condition of the property at these times. The landlord also provided invoices for each of the amounts claimed for compensation.

The tenant believed the landlord was only claiming these invoices to put the cost on them of getting the property ready to be put up for sale, which they said was the reason they had to leave the tenancy. Cleaning

The landlord pointed to several photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report that they said showed the tenant did not clean thoroughly. They highlighted photographs of a kitchen cabinet they said was not clean. It was very difficult to see any marks or dirt in the photographs highlighted of this, however. The landlord also pointed to a photograph of the top glass rim of the shower in the ensuite bathroom, saying it had been left dirty. There were a number of photographs referenced in the Outgoing Inspection Report comments section, but only a few were highlighted during the hearing.

The tenant said they had cleaned fully and thoroughly and disputed any marks or fingerprints the landlord said they saw left. The tenant said the top rim glass piece on top of the shower is high up and only around 10-15 cms.

The photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report, which were numerous, showed a property left more than reasonably clean and tidy, in my view, It was difficult to see any marks or fingerprints left by the tenants, that the landlord referred to. I also did not notice any photographs of dirty windows that required cleaning, as claimed. If the tenant missed cleaning the top of the shower rim that was high up, this is minimal and is considered de minimis, and does not justify incurring the cleaning costs claimed of $471.50. As such, I dismiss the cleaning claim. Carpet cleaning

In relation to the landlord’s carpet cleaning claim, the landlord said they had arranged for a professional carpet clean at the start of the tenancy and said some marks had been left on the carpet at the end of the tenancy. However, the landlord said they did not have any photographs of these marks left on the carpet. The tenant disputed any marks were left on the carpet, saying they had vacuumed every week and vacuumed thoroughly when they left the property.

There were no photographs provided by the landlord of any marks on the carpet, so I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove this claim. In the photographs that were provided in the Outgoing Inspection Report, the carpets appeared to be clean and tidy. Thus, I dismiss the landlord’s carpet cleaning claim. Gardening work

As regards the landlord’s garden work claim, the landlord highlighted photographs in the Outgoing Inspection Report of the garden of the front hedge and a side hedge. The landlord said both hedges needed a small trim and the lawns needed mowing, which was why they were claiming $322.00 for gardening work. The tenant said they mowed the lawns only a few days before leaving and they had done their best to keep the garden well-maintained and tidy before they left.

The photographs of the garden at the end of the tenancy show neatly mown lawns. The photographs of the hedges that the landlord said needed to be trimmed showed relatively level, well-maintained hedges, in my view. From the evidence provided, I do not see any requirement for the landlord to incur the cost of gardening work. The landlord can choose to carry out any finer levelling of the hedges, but at their expense. The photographs provided of the garden show the tenant left the gardens in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Therefore, I dismiss this claim. Refund of the bond

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has not proven their claims against the bond and so the tenant is refunded the bond in full.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s], immediately. Filing fee

Because [The tenant/s] have been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. The landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed as their claim has not been successful. Suppression

The tenant requested name suppression. The landlord did not request name suppression. As the tenant has been successful with the claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order