What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400118 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $130.00 (6496163-016) to Edith (Yijia)

How much money was awarded in case 5400118?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400118?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13341469-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400118 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $130.00 (6496163-016) to Edith (Yijia)

How much money was awarded in case 5400118?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400118?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13341469-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 2, 95 Linwood Avenue, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5400118 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5400118 — net $130.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: Washing machine filter (contribution	$28.00		Cleaning: Washing machine filter (contribution
Return of bond		$130.00	Return of bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$28.00	$158.00
Net award		$130.00
Bond		$130.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$130.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

The has applied for the return of the bond balance.

The landlord has applied for compensation.

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.”

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 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 failed to clean the washing machine filter, causing a drainage issue that required a contractor to attend.

The tenant disputes this.

The timeline at the end of tenancy was: DateActionComment 8 November 2025Tenant moves outTenant states no water in washing machine. Drum and door seal was wiped but filter not cleaned. 9 November 2026End of tenancy 10-11 November 2025Exit inspection by landlord No water observed in washing machine. Filter not checked. 12 November 2025Cleaner attendsNotes water in drum and starts a wash cycle. Texts the landlord advising of this, and asking it be checked tomorrow at the inspection. Landlord responds she will. No obvious accounting for water now being present. 13 November 2025Landlord revisitsPremises visited and checked but washing machine not inspected. On or about 14 November 2025 New tenancy starts After moving in the new tenants advised the washing machine has water in it. Landlord calls out a contractor, concerned about any possible pipe issue. He identifies the problem as the filter. Cleans it and no problem since. Minimum callout fee of $130.00 invoiced.

It was agreed by both that the filter is easy to access and clean.

Having considered the sequence of events, I consider the tenant failed to check and clean the filter at vacate.

That omission was compounded by the landlord’s subsequent failure to check the filter at two times, the first at the exit inspection and the second time after prompting from the cleaner and a revisit to the premises for another inspection.

The drainage issue was later confirmed as the filter requiring cleaning. The resolution was a simple removal and clean.

I consider the tenant should contribute towards the filter cleaning but at a cost that reflects reasonable effort, given the location of the filter and the expectation it would be cleaned by the tenant (reflected in the tenant agreement).

Even so, the unaccounted-for water in the drum after vacate, and the missed inspections of the filter by the landlord at exit/entry, means I am not satisfied the landlord has evidenced tenant liability for the full contractor cost of $130.00, as sought by the landlord. That cost remains with the landlord, bar a $28.00 contribution from the tenant towards that cost.

The reasonable amount of tenant liability is set at $28.00. No hourly rate for the cleaner was available so this amount has been derived as fair based on a reasonable expectation of time and effort. Filing fee

Because Edith (Yijia) Fan has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed her filing fee.

Given the lack of success, the landlord carries its own cost of filing.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5400118 — net $130.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: Washing machine filter (contribution	$28.00		Cleaning: Washing machine filter (contribution
Return of bond		$130.00	Return of bond
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$28.00	$158.00
Net award		$130.00
Bond		$130.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$130.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $130.00 (6496163-016) to Edith (Yijia) Fan immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The has applied for the return of the bond balance.
The landlord has applied for compensation.
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.”

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 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 failed to clean the washing machine filter, causing a drainage issue that required a contractor to attend.
The tenant disputes this.
The timeline at the end of tenancy was: DateActionComment 8 November 2025Tenant moves outTenant states no water in washing machine. Drum and door seal was wiped but filter not cleaned. 9 November 2026End of tenancy 10-11 November 2025Exit inspection by landlord No water observed in washing machine. Filter not checked. 12 November 2025Cleaner attendsNotes water in drum and starts a wash cycle. Texts the landlord advising of this, and asking it be checked tomorrow at the inspection. Landlord responds she will. No obvious accounting for water now being present. 13 November 2025Landlord revisitsPremises visited and checked but washing machine not inspected. On or about 14 November 2025 New tenancy starts After moving in the new tenants advised the washing machine has water in it. Landlord calls out a contractor, concerned about any possible pipe issue. He identifies the problem as the filter. Cleans it and no problem since. Minimum callout fee of $130.00 invoiced.
It was agreed by both that the filter is easy to access and clean.
Having considered the sequence of events, I consider the tenant failed to check and clean the filter at vacate.
That omission was compounded by the landlord’s subsequent failure to check the filter at two times, the first at the exit inspection and the second time after prompting from the cleaner and a revisit to the premises for another inspection.
The drainage issue was later confirmed as the filter requiring cleaning. The resolution was a simple removal and clean.
I consider the tenant should contribute towards the filter cleaning but at a cost that reflects reasonable effort, given the location of the filter and the expectation it would be cleaned by the tenant (reflected in the tenant agreement).
Even so, the unaccounted-for water in the drum after vacate, and the missed inspections of the filter by the landlord at exit/entry, means I am not satisfied the landlord has evidenced tenant liability for the full contractor cost of $130.00, as sought by the landlord. That cost remains with the landlord, bar a $28.00 contribution from the tenant towards that cost.
The reasonable amount of tenant liability is set at $28.00. No hourly rate for the cleaner was available so this amount has been derived as fair based on a reasonable expectation of time and effort. Filing fee
Because Edith (Yijia) Fan has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed her filing fee.
Given the lack of success, the landlord carries its own cost of filing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400118 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 95 Linwood Avenue, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400118 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 95 Linwood Avenue, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions