What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393961 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 5393961?

Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $22.89 awarded to landlord; Power Bill: $165.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $722.00 awarded to landlord; Driveway: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $18.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393961?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13102296-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393961 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 5393961?

Cleaning: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $22.89 awarded to landlord; Power Bill: $165.50 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $722.00 awarded to landlord; Driveway: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $18.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393961?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13102296-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5393961 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393961 — net $437.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 November 2025	$722.00	Rent arrears to 20 November 2025
Power bill	$165.50	Power bill
Cleaning	$550.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$22.89	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$480.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Remote replacement	$18.84	Replace furnishings: Remote replacement
Repairs: Driveway	$130.00	Repairs: Driveway
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$437.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$437.23

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
Thomas Peter Baker and Dianne Baker must pay [The landlord/s] $437.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond centre shall pay the Landlord $1680.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties 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 arrears?

The tenancy ended on 20 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenants did not agree they had rent arrears but had no evidence to show this and they could not confirm what day the tenancy ended. They referred to a letter of recommendation from the Landlord however the Landlord submitted this was written before the Tenants had vacated the property.
In considering the evidence, the rent summary proves the amount owing in rent arrears. The Tenants had no evidence to prove the rent summary was incorrect and the reference letter was not relevant to the rent arrears.
The amounts ordered are proved. Power bill
The Landlord claimed for the power bill submitting power bill invoices and metre readings to substantiate the costs. The Tenants did not agree with the arrears and stated they received the bills and paid them directly to the power company. If there were arrears, it was not intentional. The Landlord showed that the bills were in her name, not the Tenants.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In support of their claim, the Landlord provided photographs of mould on the walls, a dirty oven, a cleaning invoice, an exit inspection report and a letter from the Tenants son acknowledging the Tenants would cover reasonable costs for cleaning and requesting to deduct this from the bond.
The Landlord also claimed the carpet required cleaning because of the Tenants dog’s urine which had left stains in the lounge but mostly the smell of urine everywhere in the house. They provided a photograph of the clean carpet at the start of the tenancy. They also referred to the clause in the Tenancy Agreement which required the Tenants to professionally clean the carpet upon departure.
The Tenants disputed the cleaning costs stating that technically they should not pay but practically they should. They also claimed that they used rugs which would cover seventy five percent of the floor so they could not have caused any damage to the carpet. They were always conscious that carpet was expensive so they used these to avoid mess.
In considering the evidence I find the Landlord has proven that the property and carpet required cleaning. The exit inspection report, invoice and photographs of the dirty items show the property was not left in a clean and tidy condition. I am satisfied the carpet required professional cleaning because of the presence of dogs and the photograph of the stains.
The amounts ordered are proved. Missing remote for air conditioner
The Landlord claimed for a replacement remote for the air conditioner which was missing at the end of the tenancy. They provided a quote from Trademe for a second hand replacement and the entry inspection report.
The Tenants disputed this stating there was never a remote control for the air conditioner when they moved in and they never used the air conditioner because they did not like them.
In considering the evidence, I find from the ingoing inspection report and quote from Trademe that the remote was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Weedkiller
The Landlord also claimed the costs for weedkiller due to the Tenant not tidying up the garden. An online quote was provided of the costs to purchase week killer and a photograph of the weeds under the deck.
The Tenants disputed this cost stating they sprayed the weeds when needed. Some of the weeds they could not access either.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has proven their claim through the photographs of the weeds and copy of the online weedkiller.
The amounts ordered are proved. Flea bombs
The Landlord claimed for flea bombs because when she went to inspect the property after the Tenants moved out, she was bitten. She provided evidence of the cost for the flea bombs.
The Tenants referred to the recommendation letter from the Landlord and submitted they were clean and tidy people. They would never live in a house with fleas.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not adequately proven that there were fleas at the property as she did not provide any independent evidence of their presence or photographs of her fleabites.
The claim is dismissed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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: grass damage due to twenty foot containers the Tenants stored at the property. Photographs were provided of the damaged grass area which the Landlord claimed required digging out. She provided a quote for the use of a bobcat to repair this.
The Tenants claimed that a ‘towny’ person might see this grass area as a problem however it was a minor issue and the grass would have grown back.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenants have acknowledged there was a difference in the grass area caused by the containers and I accept the quote provided by the Landlord for the repair is reasonable. Regardless of who was viewing the grass area, there was damage caused as seen in the photographs which was more than fair wear and tear.
The amounts ordered are proved. Name suppression and filing fee
Section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides the Tribunal must on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
As the Landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord. As the Tenants have not been successful, name suppression is not granted to the Tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393961 — net $437.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 November 2025	$722.00	Rent arrears to 20 November 2025
Power bill	$165.50	Power bill
Cleaning	$550.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$22.89	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$480.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace furnishings: Remote replacement	$18.84	Replace furnishings: Remote replacement
Repairs: Driveway	$130.00	Repairs: Driveway
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$437.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$437.23

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
Thomas Peter Baker and Dianne Baker must pay [The landlord/s] $437.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond centre shall pay the Landlord $1680.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties 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 arrears?

The tenancy ended on 20 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The Tenants did not agree they had rent arrears but had no evidence to show this and they could not confirm what day the tenancy ended. They referred to a letter of recommendation from the Landlord however the Landlord submitted this was written before the Tenants had vacated the property.
In considering the evidence, the rent summary proves the amount owing in rent arrears. The Tenants had no evidence to prove the rent summary was incorrect and the reference letter was not relevant to the rent arrears.
The amounts ordered are proved. Power bill
The Landlord claimed for the power bill submitting power bill invoices and metre readings to substantiate the costs. The Tenants did not agree with the arrears and stated they received the bills and paid them directly to the power company. If there were arrears, it was not intentional. The Landlord showed that the bills were in her name, not the Tenants.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has provided sufficient evidence to prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In support of their claim, the Landlord provided photographs of mould on the walls, a dirty oven, a cleaning invoice, an exit inspection report and a letter from the Tenants son acknowledging the Tenants would cover reasonable costs for cleaning and requesting to deduct this from the bond.
The Landlord also claimed the carpet required cleaning because of the Tenants dog’s urine which had left stains in the lounge but mostly the smell of urine everywhere in the house. They provided a photograph of the clean carpet at the start of the tenancy. They also referred to the clause in the Tenancy Agreement which required the Tenants to professionally clean the carpet upon departure.
The Tenants disputed the cleaning costs stating that technically they should not pay but practically they should. They also claimed that they used rugs which would cover seventy five percent of the floor so they could not have caused any damage to the carpet. They were always conscious that carpet was expensive so they used these to avoid mess.
In considering the evidence I find the Landlord has proven that the property and carpet required cleaning. The exit inspection report, invoice and photographs of the dirty items show the property was not left in a clean and tidy condition. I am satisfied the carpet required professional cleaning because of the presence of dogs and the photograph of the stains.
The amounts ordered are proved. Missing remote for air conditioner
The Landlord claimed for a replacement remote for the air conditioner which was missing at the end of the tenancy. They provided a quote from Trademe for a second hand replacement and the entry inspection report.
The Tenants disputed this stating there was never a remote control for the air conditioner when they moved in and they never used the air conditioner because they did not like them.
In considering the evidence, I find from the ingoing inspection report and quote from Trademe that the remote was missing at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Weedkiller
The Landlord also claimed the costs for weedkiller due to the Tenant not tidying up the garden. An online quote was provided of the costs to purchase week killer and a photograph of the weeds under the deck.
The Tenants disputed this cost stating they sprayed the weeds when needed. Some of the weeds they could not access either.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has proven their claim through the photographs of the weeds and copy of the online weedkiller.
The amounts ordered are proved. Flea bombs
The Landlord claimed for flea bombs because when she went to inspect the property after the Tenants moved out, she was bitten. She provided evidence of the cost for the flea bombs.
The Tenants referred to the recommendation letter from the Landlord and submitted they were clean and tidy people. They would never live in a house with fleas.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord has not adequately proven that there were fleas at the property as she did not provide any independent evidence of their presence or photographs of her fleabites.
The claim is dismissed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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: grass damage due to twenty foot containers the Tenants stored at the property. Photographs were provided of the damaged grass area which the Landlord claimed required digging out. She provided a quote for the use of a bobcat to repair this.
The Tenants claimed that a ‘towny’ person might see this grass area as a problem however it was a minor issue and the grass would have grown back.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenants have acknowledged there was a difference in the grass area caused by the containers and I accept the quote provided by the Landlord for the repair is reasonable. Regardless of who was viewing the grass area, there was damage caused as seen in the photographs which was more than fair wear and tear.
The amounts ordered are proved. Name suppression and filing fee
Section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides the Tribunal must on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
As the Landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord. As the Tenants have not been successful, name suppression is not granted to the Tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393961 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393961 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

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 arrears?

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