What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5398089 about?

The tribunal order states: Nadine Holopainen to pay Shamima Lone $348.00 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5398089?

Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398089?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13176529-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5398089 about?

The tribunal order states: Nadine Holopainen to pay Shamima Lone $348.00 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 5398089?

Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398089?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13176529-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 401, 2 Miller Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5398089 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5398089 — net $348.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: incl pest control	$320.00	Cleaning: incl pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$348.00
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$348.00

Order

Nadine Holopainen to pay Shamima Lone $348.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (BN-00124019) immediately apportioned as follows: Shamima Lone: $348.00 Nadine Holopainen: $2,032.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord has applied for total compensation of $936.43 from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant response included some claims that should present by way of a tenant application to the Tribunal if so desired. This was advised to the tenant at the hearing.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

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 (“RTA”).
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA 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 claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
In support of the claims a series of photos were provided as well as an invoice for $661.25. A related compensation claim of $24.48 invoice cost for pest control consumables was also sought.
The tenant had limited photos from the exit.
A challenge for both parties was that there was no electricity available to the premises during the last two weeks of the tenancy. This impacted vacated efforts of the tenant as well as the landlord’s ability to fully inspect all of the premises at that time.
Both parties made written submissions in addition to the photos provided. The invoice itemised list appears to be a set of standard tasks with a specific task of deck sanitising clearly requested and invoiced. This was a one-bedroom apartment.
There was healthy discussion on this claim during the hearing. The photographic evidence of the landlord does not support the full cost as sought. The limited photos provided by the tenant fail to absolve her of full liability.
Having reviewed the invoice, evidence and further considered the respective submissions I have determined an award of $320.00 for the landlord’s need for further cleaning is appropriate. That sum factors for the extra effort from pet related cleaning, as well as pest control as conducted.

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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The landlord sought compensation for a call out in January 2026 for a plumber to attend the failed waste disposal unit again. The cost was $250.70.
This was the second instance where a call out was required so the landlord felt somewhat aggrieved. Earlier, in August 2025, a similar call-out was required at the same cost. That was paid by the owner at the time. Of note in that invoice was the added advice that if the problem happened again the unit should be replaced with a better-quality unit.
The landlord, after the tenancy, enquired regarding this comment and states she was told that was a standard comment and not specific.
The photos provided show the unit with consider loss of sink baffle protection from unexpected debris getting into the grinder section of the unit. The photos show a large piece of plastic later retrieved from the unit. This is considered the cause of the unit stopping and the landlord considered the tenant liable.
I would have greater sympathy with that stance if there was a better baffle in place. The photos show a unit with minimal baffles in place. Debris could easily fall in without impediment. I do not consider a tenant should be expected to check the unit each time before use. Some reliance on the baffle to hold such unexpected items before any user pressure to insert solids into the unit is reasonable. Based on the photos, and advice in the August 2025 invoice, I consider replacement of the baffle, if not the unit itself, prior was not unreasonable and such a step might have avoided the later costs incurred. For this reason, I consider the unit’s condition was not sufficiently robust or in a reasonable condition to conclude the tenant had been careless and should be accountable for the costs incurred.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Shamima Lone has substantially succeeded with the basis of her claim, the need for cleaning, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5398089 — net $348.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: incl pest control	$320.00	Cleaning: incl pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$348.00
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$348.00

Order

Nadine Holopainen to pay Shamima Lone $348.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (BN-00124019) immediately apportioned as follows: Shamima Lone: $348.00 Nadine Holopainen: $2,032.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord has applied for total compensation of $936.43 from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant response included some claims that should present by way of a tenant application to the Tribunal if so desired. This was advised to the tenant at the hearing.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this 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.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

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 (“RTA”).
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA 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 claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
In support of the claims a series of photos were provided as well as an invoice for $661.25. A related compensation claim of $24.48 invoice cost for pest control consumables was also sought.
The tenant had limited photos from the exit.
A challenge for both parties was that there was no electricity available to the premises during the last two weeks of the tenancy. This impacted vacated efforts of the tenant as well as the landlord’s ability to fully inspect all of the premises at that time.
Both parties made written submissions in addition to the photos provided. The invoice itemised list appears to be a set of standard tasks with a specific task of deck sanitising clearly requested and invoiced. This was a one-bedroom apartment.
There was healthy discussion on this claim during the hearing. The photographic evidence of the landlord does not support the full cost as sought. The limited photos provided by the tenant fail to absolve her of full liability.
Having reviewed the invoice, evidence and further considered the respective submissions I have determined an award of $320.00 for the landlord’s need for further cleaning is appropriate. That sum factors for the extra effort from pet related cleaning, as well as pest control as conducted.

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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The landlord sought compensation for a call out in January 2026 for a plumber to attend the failed waste disposal unit again. The cost was $250.70.
This was the second instance where a call out was required so the landlord felt somewhat aggrieved. Earlier, in August 2025, a similar call-out was required at the same cost. That was paid by the owner at the time. Of note in that invoice was the added advice that if the problem happened again the unit should be replaced with a better-quality unit.
The landlord, after the tenancy, enquired regarding this comment and states she was told that was a standard comment and not specific.
The photos provided show the unit with consider loss of sink baffle protection from unexpected debris getting into the grinder section of the unit. The photos show a large piece of plastic later retrieved from the unit. This is considered the cause of the unit stopping and the landlord considered the tenant liable.
I would have greater sympathy with that stance if there was a better baffle in place. The photos show a unit with minimal baffles in place. Debris could easily fall in without impediment. I do not consider a tenant should be expected to check the unit each time before use. Some reliance on the baffle to hold such unexpected items before any user pressure to insert solids into the unit is reasonable. Based on the photos, and advice in the August 2025 invoice, I consider replacement of the baffle, if not the unit itself, prior was not unreasonable and such a step might have avoided the later costs incurred. For this reason, I consider the unit’s condition was not sufficiently robust or in a reasonable condition to conclude the tenant had been careless and should be accountable for the costs incurred.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Shamima Lone has substantially succeeded with the basis of her claim, the need for cleaning, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5398089 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 401, 2 Miller Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5398089 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 401, 2 Miller Street, Point Chevalier, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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