How much money was awarded in case 5404509?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Deck (By Agreement: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404509?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13532807-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5404509?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $560.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Deck (By Agreement: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404509?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13532807-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Marine Terrace, Bayswater, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5404509 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404509 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404509 — net $290.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Deck (by agreement	$250.00		Repairs: Deck (by agreement
Cleaning: (reduced	$350.00		Cleaning: (reduced
Lawns and Garden work: (reduced	$250.00		Lawns and Garden work: (reduced
Compensation: Carpet cleaning reimbursement		$560.00	Carpet cleaning reimbursement
Total award	$850.00	$560.00
Net award	$290.00
Bond	$3,180.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$290.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.

Tuck Carlisle Choate and Chelsea Denise Choate to pay [The landlord/s] $290.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,180.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $290.00 Tuck Carlisle Choate and Chelsea Denise Choate: $2,890.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for vacated compensation and reimbursement in respect of the above tenancy.

The landlord cross applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The premises consist of a single level house with 3 bedrooms and 1.5 bathrooms. The tenants resided there with their 2 children and 2 cats.

The house is approximately 50 years old and in a condition one would expect of a house of this age.

The tenancy started on 31 January 2025 and ended on 30 November 2025.

There has been a lot of communication between the parties by text and email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions. The landlord provided photographic evidence during the hearing.

I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues

Have the parties breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986?

Have the parties proved their claims for compensation? Legal considerations

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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. Tenant application Are the tenants entitled to compensation for items stored in the garage and damaged by mould?

The tenants claim that their various personal belongings were destroyed by mould while stored in the garage. These items included: • Twin mattress – 2 years old – purchased for $400.00 • Kid’s mattress – 3 years – $40.00 (foam mattress) • King tempur mattress – 1 year old - $1600.00 • Christmas tree – 1 year old - $450.00 • Rugs – 2 years old - $400.00 • Kitchen table and chairs – 4 years old $100.00 • Car seat airport bag: 6 months old $50.00 • Backpacks x 2 – 1 year old $150.00 • Pram – 2 years old - $520.00 • Baby clothes – 31 years old – priceless • China souvenirs – 13 years – priceless

All amounts recorded above are estimates only.

The tenants confirmed that the items were stored in the garage. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the garage is detached from the house and not insulated.

The tenants say that during a routine inspection the landlord opened the garage and noticed the items stored in the garage. The tenants say that the landlord never advised them that the garage was not waterproof and not a liveable space.

The landlord says that the garage is free standing and not part of the house. It is in poor condition. The tenants were aware of this when they rented the property.

The main garage door did not have a key and was not secure. The landlord advised them not to store anything of importance in the garage. The landlord noted that it was only for storing wood. The landlord advised them of this at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord further submits that storing valuable items in a shed or garage which is clearly not watertight and is not built in the same capacity as a house is not a breach of landlord obligations. They submit that being advised not to store anything in such a location is careless and intentional. The risk to store any item in this manner, having disregard for the advice is careless. The landlord says that there are also no expense receipts provided in support of these claims.

The tenants say that when they moved in there were items belonging to the owner which were locked away in a separate area of the garage. They were advised not to touch those items. The tenants assumed from this that it would okay to store their belongings there as well. Analysis

The issue for determination is whether the landlord is liable under the Residential Tenancies Act to compensate the tenants for mould damage to personal belongings stored in the detached garage.

Section 45(1)(b) of the Act requires a landlord to provide and maintain that premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises.

The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that the garage was an old, detached structure and not of the same standard as the dwelling itself.

The condition of the garage, specifically its dampness and susceptibility to mould, was consistent with its age and construction. There is no evidence that the garage had deteriorated beyond what would reasonably be expected for such a structure.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the garage formed part of the premises but was not represented as suitable for all forms of storage particularly of valuable or moisture sensitive items.

The Tribunal also accepts that the landlord advised the tenants that the garage was in poor condition and not suitable for storing valuable belongings.

Based on the photographic evidence provided by the landlord the condition of the garage is also clearly apparent.

There is no evidence that the garage breached any applicable building, health or safety requirements.

The tenants made a conscious decision to store personal belongings in a space that was known, or ought to have been reasonably known, to be damp and unsuitable for that purpose.

In those circumstances the loss is not one for which the landlord should bear a responsibility.

Accordingly, the tenants claim for compensation for mould damage to personal belongings is dismissed. Are the tenants entitled to reimbursement for the expense of having the carpets professionally cleaned?

The tenants claim reimbursement of $560.00 they paid to have the carpets professionally cleaned and treated for fleas. The tenants provided a receipt from Alex Cleaning dated 27 November 2025.

The landlord says that the carpet is more than 10 years old. The landlord says that the carpet was professionally cleaned on 28 January 2025, just days prior to the tenants moving in. The landlord showed the invoice to the tenants and the Tribunal during the hearing. Analysis

The issue for determination is whether the tenant is entitled to reimbursement of the cost of professional carpet cleaning in circumstances where the tenancy agreement required such cleaning, and the tenant undertook that cleaning at the end of the tenancy.

Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act requires a tenant on termination of a tendency to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.

The statutory obligation does not require a tenant to return the premises to a professionally cleaned or as new condition. The Tribunal has consistently held that reasonably clean and tidy reflects the standard of an ordinary reasonable person, not a commercial standard.

A clause requiring carpets to be professionally cleaned in respect of pets at the end of a tendency (prior to the pet amendments which came into force on 1 December 2025), is likely to be unenforceable as it imposed an obligation beyond that required by the Act.

The clause imposed a higher obligation than the statutory requirement to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Prior to 1 December 2025 the fact that the tenant agreed to the clause does not cure its unenforceability.

The tenants submit that having complied with the clause and incurred the expense they should be reimbursed.

The relevant question is not whether the tenant complied with clause but whether the landlord was legally entitled to acquire the work to be done in the first place.

There is no evidence before the tribunal that the carpets were left in a condition falling below the reasonably clean and tidy standard. There is no evidence of staining odour or flea infestation requiring professional treatment.

The presence of two cats does not automatically justify the need for professional cleaning. I accept that pets may increase the likelihood of additional cleaning being required but liability depends on the actual condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.

In the absence of evidence of a breach the landlord would not have been entitled to recover the cost of professional cleaning from the tenant. The tribunal finds that the clause requiring professional carpet cleaning and flea treatment is unenforceable.

Accordingly, I allow the tenants claim for reimbursement of carpet cleaning and flea treatment. Landlord application

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. Cleaning

The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord says that the oven had not been cleaned. The windowsills and joinery had not been wiped down, kitchen cupboards, bench tops, bathroom, fireplace had not cleaned.

The landlord claims $780.00 compensation for the owner’s time cleaning the property at the end of the tenancy.

The tenants say they returned and addressed all cleaning issues raised the day after the tenancy ended (on or about 1 December). The landlord returned on 2 December and took exit photographs confirming that parts of the premises were not reasonably clean. Garden claim

The landlord says that the tenants did not leave the garden in a reasonably tidy state. The landlord says that the weeds had to be removed with a large bin. The landlord says that the exit photos were taken on 2 December. They state that some photographs were also taken on the 1st of December. The parties provided photographic evidence in support of their submissions. Analysis

Both parties provided evidence in support of their submissions. The landlord and tenants provided photographs which they say were taken at the end of the tenancy.

While I am satisfied that the tenants did not leave the premises, both inside and out, in a reasonably clean and tidy condition I am not persuaded that the amounts claimed by the landlord are supported by the evidence filed.

The landlord claims compensation for 13 hours of cleaning amounting to $780.00. The landlord also claims compensation for 10 hours of garden work amounting to $600.00. The work was undertaken by the owner.

Having carefully considered the evidence provided I allow the two claims but reduce the amounts awarded in line with the evidence.

For the most part, the inside of the house required spot cleaning which would not justify 13 hours of labour to bring it up to a level of reasonably clean.

I also find that although the garden required further weeding, I am not satisfied that 10 hours of labour was justified to have the garden reasonably tidy. Put simply, the amounts claimed by the landlord are not supported by the available evidence.

The amounts ordered are allowed and amended to reflect the evidence provided in support. In practice, the Tribunal often refers to the prevailing rates charged by professional cleaning companies. As a general guideline, rates for standard residential cleaning and garden work typically range from $25 to $40 per hour, depending on the region and the nature of the work.

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 claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to deck.

The landlord claims $250.00 for deck damage. The tenants agree with this claim and the claim is ordered by consent. Wallpaper damage:

The landlord says that the tenants damaged wallpaper by placing numerous stickers on the wall. The landlord says that the wallpaper is vintage and is sentimental to the owner.

The landlord says that when she did the final inspection, they noticed stickers all over the wallpaper. The tenants say that they purchased what they thought were removable stickers from Bunnings. When they started to remove them, they realised that they were not coming off as described. They decided to leave the remaining stickers.

The landlord provided insurance details but says that no insurance claim has been made to date. The owners provided an invoice of their time taken to remedy the damage which they say involved preparing and painting the bedrooms.

The tenants say that the wallpaper was already peeling and cracking. They also say that the depreciated cost of the wallpaper is next to zero.

The landlord provided photographic evidence of the stickers on the walls. The tenants also provided their own photographic evidence of the condition of the wallpaper at the start of the tenancy. Analysis

The landlord seeks compensation for alleged damage to bedroom wallpaper. The landlord states that the wallpaper was vintage and held sentimental value. At the final inspection the landlord observed that the tenants had placed stickers across the wallpaper.

The tenants accept that the stickers were applied and state they believed the stickers were removable, but when attempting to remove them they discovered that doing so caused small sections of the wallpaper to lift. They elected to leave the remaining stickers in place to avoid further damage.

The tenants further submit that the wallpaper was already old, peeling and cracking at the commencement of the tenancy, and that any additional damage was minor. They also say the wallpaper had negligible depreciated value.

Under section 40(2)(a) RTA tenants must not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises. However, section 49B provides that where damage is careless tenant liability is limited in subject to insurance considerations. Importantly, tenants are not liable for fair wear and tear. The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the damage exceeds fair wear and tear, and that the landlord has suffered an actual proven loss.

Compensation is assessed on the basis of the depreciated value of the damaged item, not the replacement cost.

The evidence clearly indicates that the wallpaper was old and in a deteriorated condition at the start of the tendency. The landlord has not provided persuasive evidence to the contrary.

Wallpaper is a decorative surface with a limited useful life. Where it is already significantly aged and worn its remaining economic value is minimal.

The tenants’ actions in applying stickers were deliberate, however the resulting damage from attempted removal appears to have been inadvertent. The evidence supports the tenant’s submission that they believed the stickers were removable and did not intend to damage the wallpaper.

The Tribunal accepts that some additional damage occurred, and that the extent of the damage was limited. In these circumstances the damage is properly characterised is either falling within fair wear and tear or so minor relative to the existing condition as to have negligible impact.

Even if liability were established the landlord must prove actual loss. No invoices, quotes or other evidence of remedial costs have been provided other than an invoice for the owner’s time.

More importantly the wallpaper being old and already deteriorated had no remaining depreciable value.

Sentimental value is not compensable under the Act. The Tribunal can only award compensation for actual financial loss.

On the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has suffered any measurable financial loss and therefore the claim has not been established.

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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is substantially successful– see section 95A RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5404509 — net $290.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Deck (by agreement	$250.00		Repairs: Deck (by agreement
Cleaning: (reduced	$350.00		Cleaning: (reduced
Lawns and Garden work: (reduced	$250.00		Lawns and Garden work: (reduced
Compensation: Carpet cleaning reimbursement		$560.00	Carpet cleaning reimbursement
Total award	$850.00	$560.00
Net award	$290.00
Bond	$3,180.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$290.00