Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5399032 — Cleanliness
Decided 31 Mar 2026 · Published 31 Mar 2026 · Application 5399032
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- Peter Michael Robinson must pay [The landlord/s] $8,478.74 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
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 landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and they were required to carry out cleaning in several locations. This included to the shower, oven and kitchen, windows and walls throughout. The landlord says that the walls had been damaged and stained with cigarette smoke, and they had endeavoured to remove this.
- The landlord has provided photographs and cost evidence. The total claim for cleaning is $890.74, and includes individual costings for shower cleaning, oven and kitchen cleaning, window cleaning and cleaning products. The landlord says they carried out general cleaning themselves and have not claimed these costs.
- On review of the evidence, I consider that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
- The amount ordered is proved.
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 landlord says that during the tenancy the property was intentionally damaged from cigarette smoke. Despite cleaning (as referred to above), they were required to carry out painting to remove extensive staining on the walls and ceilings in several rooms.
- The landlord has provided photographs and invoices for $3,825.36 (for the third bedroom and hallway to the bathroom) and $3,477.60 for the backroom and hallway by the office. A letter from the painting contractors advises that the cigarette odour remained strong despite all recommended remediation steps being taken and that originally, he had only quoted one base coat, but that an additional coat was required as the staining and smell continued to emanate through the first coat. The letter stated that even with painting, the issue persists, is quite severe and the smell is noticeable throughout the property.
- The landlord also advises that there were several other items that were damaged during the tenancy, however, they have not sought to claim these.
- On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant intentionally damaged the property through cigarette smoking. The landlord advises that prior to the tenancy, although not perfect, the walls were in good condition with some reasonable wear and tear for their age.
- I have reduced the amount awarded slightly to $6,500.00. 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 off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan
- The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amount ordered is proved. Other matters
- The landlord also claims $350.00 for additional waste charges. This arises from the standard council bins being insufficient for the tenant and other occupants. The tenant accordingly requested extra bin services. The landlord says these additional bins were requested for the tenant on the basis that the tenant would cover the cost.
- The amount ordered is proved.
- The landlord also claims for lost rent during the time that they were carrying out cleaning and repairs to the property. They submit that they had a tenant ready to move in, but were required to cancel the arrangement as the property damage was too severe for a new tenant to move in.
- Despite acting as quickly as possible, and although the tenant moved out on 12 October 2025, they were unable to secure a new tenant to move in until 18 November 2025. The landlord claims four weeks rent (totalling $2,300.00) and I consider this is reasonable in the circumstances.
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have also reimbursed the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 31 March 2026