Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5405789 — Cleanliness at 45 Greenhaven Drive, Burwood, Christchurch 8083
Decided 5 March 2026 · Published 5 March 2026 · Application 5405789
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Greene
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $639.16
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $639.16
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Replace halogen lightbulbs x 4 | $107.41 | Replace halogen lightbulbs x 4 | |
| Carpet cleaning | $207.00 | Carpet cleaning | |
| Cleaning | $296.75 | Cleaning | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $639.16 | ||
| Bond | $2,380.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $639.16 |
Claims and awards for application 5405789 — net $639.16 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Replace halogen lightbulbs x 4
- Amount
- $107.41
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Replace halogen lightbulbs x 4
Carpet cleaning
- Amount
- $207.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet cleaning
Cleaning
- Amount
- $296.75
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $639.16
Bond
Landlord $2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $639.16
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Jeffrey Ian Hawes and Hannah Leigh Cockfield to pay Birds Nest Property Management Limited as agent for David and Sharlene Knight $639.16 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (3344052-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Birds Nest Property Management Limited as agent for David and Sharlene Knight: $639.16 Jeffrey Ian Hawes and Hannah Leigh Cockfield: $1,740.84
- The tenants’ application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing I held today. Ms Hancock and Ms Bird represented the landlord.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, part refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The landlord has 3 claims – the replacement of halogen light bulbs ($107.41); carpet cleaning ($207.00); and interior cleaning ($296.75).
- The tenants’ application is a defence to the landlord’s claim. In addition, they seek exemplary damages for alleged misleading conduct by the landlord, an attempt to interfere with their rights, and the undermining of their mana causing stress and a negative impact on their health and well-being. The landlord’s application
Did the tenants 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 1 . The tenant must usually (though not always) replace light bulbs.
- The landlord produced photos, an inspection report, and an invoice in support of its cleaning claims.
- The tenant submitted that they left the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. The tenants also provided some photographic evidence.
- Claims for cleaning are not decided on the subjective opinion of either party. The Tribunal looks to the objective evidence.
- Here, the Tribunal finds that the premises were generally left in a good condition, but some further cleaning was reasonably required to meet the standard the law imposes on a tenant. That included emptying the firebox and cleaning the oven as well as other general cleaning.
- That the final inspection was completed after the tenants had vacated, and not done with both parties present, does not negate the landlord’s claim.
- The claim for carpet cleaning is also proved. The tenants kept a dog at the premises (which was consented to) and a cat (which apparently was not). Tenants are generally not required to have carpets professionally cleaned if vacuuming alone will mean they are left reasonably clean. But the Tribunal usually considers it reasonable for carpets to be professionally cleaned when 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) pets have been kept inside. That is to remove allergens that might cause issues for the next tenants and to remove the odours associated with the keeping of animals inside.
- The landlord has recorded that all the lights were working in the lounge at the start of the tenancy, but 4 bulbs were not working at the end. The tenants said that the bulbs were already blown at the start of the tenancy something they addressed with their former property manager.
- There is no evidence of any discussions on this issue. It seems odd that the tenants would go without 4 working light bulbs in the lounge for the 18 months’ duration of the tenancy. I find that the tenants are liable for the cost of replacing the light bulbs, since they probably were working as recorded, and stopped working during the tenancy. The tenants’ application
- The tenants’ have sought exemplary damages for what they allege was a misleading initial property inspection report, for not agreeing to a joint exit inspection, and for discouraging them from lodging an application in the Tenancy Tribunal. They refer to a failure by the landlord to respect their rights and to uphold their dignity and respect.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the statutory considerations 2 . Those are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest.
- The evidence does not establish any misleading conduct by the landlord. Issues from the start of the tenancy should have been addressed then. If the landlord said that ‘a tenancy dispute is generally something most tenants wish to avoid’ that is simply an observation not a threat or a discouragement. Injured feelings do not attract exemplary damages (nor indeed an award of compensation).
- The tenants have not proved any defined unlawful act by the landlord that would lead to an award of exemplary damages.
- The tenants’ application is dismissed. 2 set out in section 109 RTA
- Finally, the tenants provided photos of a door, apparently an issue from the start of the tenancy. As there is no tenant application before the Tribunal, I cannot address that. Result
- The tenants will pay the landlord $639.16 from the bond which includes reimbursement of the filing fee.
- The balance of the bond of $1,740.84 will be refunded to the tenants.
- The tenants’ application for exemplary damages is dismissed. Name suppression
- The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought name suppression. I make no name suppression order as their application and their defence to the landlord’s application are unsuccessful 3 .
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109, s2, s3, s40(1), s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5405789?
The tribunal order states: Jeffrey Ian Hawes and Hannah Leigh Cockfield to pay Birds Nest Property
How much money was awarded in case 5405789?
Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $296.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $107.41 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405789?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405789?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13235327-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.