What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5397328 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 5397328?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $277.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $287.14 awarded to landlord; Electrical Outlets: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $576.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5397328?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5397328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13222340-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5397328 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 5397328?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $277.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $287.14 awarded to landlord; Electrical Outlets: $15.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $576.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5397328?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5397328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13222340-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5397328 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5397328 — net $1,584.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 23/9/25 to 25/9/25	$287.14	Rent arrears from 23/9/25 to 25/9/25
Cleaning: Including rubbish pick up; wash curtains x2 pair	$400.00	Cleaning: Including rubbish pick up; wash curtains x2 pair
Repairs: Electrical outlets	$15.00	Repairs: Electrical outlets
Lock/key replacement: Front door lock	$277.15	Lock/key replacement: Front door lock
Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees	$576.94	Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,584.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,584.23

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tasha Amiria Rerekura must pay [The landlord/s] $1,584.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

I heard how the tenancy ended on 25 September 2025 when the landlord took possession following an order of the Tribunal made on 18 September 2025. That earlier order of the Tribunal already awards the landlord rent to 22 September 2025. The Tribunal in this application can therefore only deal with rent after this date to the possession date.
I therefore award the landlord rent for the final three days of the tenancy in this order. The landlord provided rent records which prove this sum. I note that any balance owing under the earlier Tribunal order remains recoverable by the landlord through enforcement of that order.

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 and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I accept that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys.
The landlord seeks $277.15 for the return of the keys. I am satisfied that the tenant was provided with keys and that they were not returned at the end of the tenancy. I heard how the landlord waited for the keys to be returned, and when they were not, the locks were changed. I am satisfied that the amount sought for the lock change is reasonable, and that the sum claimed has been proven.
I am satisfied that the tenant left a volume of rubbish at the property after the tenancy ended including white goods, a couch, mattresses, bedframes, TVs and other smaller miscellaneous items. The sum sought is reasonable given the level of rubbish evidenced. The sum ordered is proven.
The landlord seeks cleaning costs of $720. I am satisfied the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not require premises to be provided or returned in an immaculate condition, but rather in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
What is “reasonable” cannot be determined with scientific precision. Instead the Tribunal must assess the evidence presented, particularly photographs, and determine whether the standard has been met. In making that assessment, the Tribunal may take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy and the general age and condition of the premises.
Fly spots and similar natural accumulations on light fittings, ceilings and walls are common in residential properties and do not automatically indicate a failure by the tenant to meet the requirement to leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy.” Tenants are not required to rigorously clean ceilings, walls or lightshades, and the standard is not one of immaculate or hotel-level cleanliness. However, where evidence (particularly photographs) shows an excessive build-up that an average reasonable person would consider unclean, the Tribunal may find cleaning costs justified.
I accept that certain aspects of the property were not reasonably clean. For example, it is sufficiently clear from the photographs and description in the cleaning invoice that the oven was not clean, the fireplace needed some attention, the bathroom shower glass needed cleaning, that the curtains needed cleaning in the lounge and one bedroom, that a small amount of rubbish needed collecting from outside and some of the walls, ceilings, skirtings, lights and cupboards needed some further attention (at varying levels) to remove a more than reasonable level of dirt, cobwebs, grubby marks and fly spots.
However, in this case, the extent of cleaning shown in the photographs does not justify the size of the invoice submitted. Some of the work set out in the invoice is not supported by evidence. For example, re attaching the pantry door, cleaning the dishwasher and deodorising it and a full vacuum and full mop. Accordingly, the claim for cleaning costs is reduced.
I consider a sum of $400 is reasonable in relation to this part of the application which is proven.

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 landlord says that the tenant is liable for damage caused to two electrical outlets. One is hanging off the wall and the other has been damaged with a burn mark on it. The landlord suggests a child may have inserted something it should not have into that one. The detailed ingoing report does not record any such damage and I accept the submission that had there been damage of this kind it would have been noted.
I accept that the damage took place during the course of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In determining the appropriate level of compensation, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation relates to the principle of betterment: all items experience wear and tear over time and will eventually require replacement. Where an item is replaced earlier than expected because of tenant-caused damage, the landlord should not receive the full cost of a brand-new or superior replacement. Compensation must therefore be adjusted to reflect the item’s age and condition so that the landlord is restored to their previous position, rather than placed in a better one.
I consider that electrical outlets will have a long (but not indefinite) lifespan. There was no evidence as to the age of the outlets and their exact condition at the start of the tenancy is impossible (or nearly impossible) to observe from the photographs provided. However, if the identified damage is disregarded, the sockets shown in the end of the tenancy photographs appear to be relatively modern. I award the landlord $15 for the replacement of the two sockets which is a sum I consider reasonable given all the available evidence. Filing fee and suppression
I award the landlord the filing fee because it has been substantially successful. The landlord seeks suppression of its identifying details, and I award this as it has been substantially successful (s95A RTA).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5397328 — net $1,584.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 23/9/25 to 25/9/25	$287.14	Rent arrears from 23/9/25 to 25/9/25
Cleaning: Including rubbish pick up; wash curtains x2 pair	$400.00	Cleaning: Including rubbish pick up; wash curtains x2 pair
Repairs: Electrical outlets	$15.00	Repairs: Electrical outlets
Lock/key replacement: Front door lock	$277.15	Lock/key replacement: Front door lock
Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees	$576.94	Rubbish removal: Labour and dump fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,584.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,584.23

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tasha Amiria Rerekura must pay [The landlord/s] $1,584.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

I heard how the tenancy ended on 25 September 2025 when the landlord took possession following an order of the Tribunal made on 18 September 2025. That earlier order of the Tribunal already awards the landlord rent to 22 September 2025. The Tribunal in this application can therefore only deal with rent after this date to the possession date.
I therefore award the landlord rent for the final three days of the tenancy in this order. The landlord provided rent records which prove this sum. I note that any balance owing under the earlier Tribunal order remains recoverable by the landlord through enforcement of that order.

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 and return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
I accept that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys.
The landlord seeks $277.15 for the return of the keys. I am satisfied that the tenant was provided with keys and that they were not returned at the end of the tenancy. I heard how the landlord waited for the keys to be returned, and when they were not, the locks were changed. I am satisfied that the amount sought for the lock change is reasonable, and that the sum claimed has been proven.
I am satisfied that the tenant left a volume of rubbish at the property after the tenancy ended including white goods, a couch, mattresses, bedframes, TVs and other smaller miscellaneous items. The sum sought is reasonable given the level of rubbish evidenced. The sum ordered is proven.
The landlord seeks cleaning costs of $720. I am satisfied the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 does not require premises to be provided or returned in an immaculate condition, but rather in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
What is “reasonable” cannot be determined with scientific precision. Instead the Tribunal must assess the evidence presented, particularly photographs, and determine whether the standard has been met. In making that assessment, the Tribunal may take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy and the general age and condition of the premises.
Fly spots and similar natural accumulations on light fittings, ceilings and walls are common in residential properties and do not automatically indicate a failure by the tenant to meet the requirement to leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy.” Tenants are not required to rigorously clean ceilings, walls or lightshades, and the standard is not one of immaculate or hotel-level cleanliness. However, where evidence (particularly photographs) shows an excessive build-up that an average reasonable person would consider unclean, the Tribunal may find cleaning costs justified.
I accept that certain aspects of the property were not reasonably clean. For example, it is sufficiently clear from the photographs and description in the cleaning invoice that the oven was not clean, the fireplace needed some attention, the bathroom shower glass needed cleaning, that the curtains needed cleaning in the lounge and one bedroom, that a small amount of rubbish needed collecting from outside and some of the walls, ceilings, skirtings, lights and cupboards needed some further attention (at varying levels) to remove a more than reasonable level of dirt, cobwebs, grubby marks and fly spots.
However, in this case, the extent of cleaning shown in the photographs does not justify the size of the invoice submitted. Some of the work set out in the invoice is not supported by evidence. For example, re attaching the pantry door, cleaning the dishwasher and deodorising it and a full vacuum and full mop. Accordingly, the claim for cleaning costs is reduced.
I consider a sum of $400 is reasonable in relation to this part of the application which is proven.

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 landlord says that the tenant is liable for damage caused to two electrical outlets. One is hanging off the wall and the other has been damaged with a burn mark on it. The landlord suggests a child may have inserted something it should not have into that one. The detailed ingoing report does not record any such damage and I accept the submission that had there been damage of this kind it would have been noted.
I accept that the damage took place during the course of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In determining the appropriate level of compensation, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation relates to the principle of betterment: all items experience wear and tear over time and will eventually require replacement. Where an item is replaced earlier than expected because of tenant-caused damage, the landlord should not receive the full cost of a brand-new or superior replacement. Compensation must therefore be adjusted to reflect the item’s age and condition so that the landlord is restored to their previous position, rather than placed in a better one.
I consider that electrical outlets will have a long (but not indefinite) lifespan. There was no evidence as to the age of the outlets and their exact condition at the start of the tenancy is impossible (or nearly impossible) to observe from the photographs provided. However, if the identified damage is disregarded, the sockets shown in the end of the tenancy photographs appear to be relatively modern. I award the landlord $15 for the replacement of the two sockets which is a sum I consider reasonable given all the available evidence. Filing fee and suppression
I award the landlord the filing fee because it has been substantially successful. The landlord seeks suppression of its identifying details, and I award this as it has been substantially successful (s95A RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5397328 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5397328 — Cleanliness

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