What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5406568?

The tribunal order states: Dean Roberts-Cox, Emma Stothart, Misionare Maka and Robert Jade

How much money was awarded in case 5406568?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; plaster, sand, and paint bedroom wal…: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13533035-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5406568?

The tribunal order states: Dean Roberts-Cox, Emma Stothart, Misionare Maka and Robert Jade

How much money was awarded in case 5406568?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; plaster, sand, and paint bedroom wal…: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13533035-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

80B Stewart Drive, Newlands, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406568 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406568 — net $578.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$75.00	Oven/stove cleaning
General cleaning including bedroom 1 carpet	$200.00	General cleaning including bedroom 1 carpet
Cleaning: removing mesh from windows	$125.00	Cleaning: removing mesh from windows
Repairs: plaster, sand, and paint bedroom wall	$150.00	Repairs: plaster, sand, and paint bedroom wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$578.00
Bond	$2,350.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$578.00

Order

Dean Roberts-Cox, Emma Stothart, Misionare Maka and Robert Jade Cabatingan to pay Manjit Devgun and Baljinder Devgun $578.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,350.00 (5754066-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Manjit Devgun and Baljinder Devgun: $578.00 Dean Roberts-cox, Emma Stothart, Misionare Maka and Robert Jade Cabatingan: $1,772.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.

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 landlords claim that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including the gardens and grounds. They seek cleaning costs accordingly. The tenants dispute the claim.
The landlords allowed the tenants to keep a cat part way through the tenancy and say that cat hair had not been vacuumed up and the carpets had not been professionally cleaned which was a condition of their consent to the cat recorded in a variation to the tenancy agreement. They also complained that the interior of the premises had a strong smell of oil in the kitchen and bathroom. They presented photos in support of their claims. However, the photos were limited and did not show all the areas for which they have claimed cleaning costs.
The landlords obtained cleaning quotes for various areas inside the house which they submitted in support of their claim. However, they did not actually incur these costs because they did the cleaning work themselves. Therefore, they are not entitled to be recovery of the quoted amounts. However, they are entitled to a reasonable award of compensation to cover their cleaning of the areas which they have proved were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
As discussed at the hearing, the landlord is not entitled to require professional carpet cleaning as a condition of having pets. Again, the tenants’ obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Professional cleaning is not necessarily required to achieve that result.
I have carefully considered all the available evidence and award the following amounts: a. For the oven, rangehood and stovetop: Some of the landlords’ photos were taken during the cleaning process and there was no photo clearly showing the condition inside the oven. They say the cleaning took 4 hours. I award $75 based on the photos provided. b. For general cleaning of the house, including carpets: The landlords supplied limited photos taken of the kitchen cupboards, the entrance floor, the lounge lightshades, the shower drain, shower box and the vanity. There was one photo showing carpet stains in a bedroom. The photo of the lounge carpet photo was taken at a distance, so stains were not visible. However, the pre-tenancy condition report records existing stains on the lounge carpet. There were no photos showing the presence of cat hair. The landlord had no receipts for hiring a Rug Doctor and the cleaning solution. Based on the photo evidence of the cleaning required, I award $200; c. For removing mesh from the windows: The landlord says it took 5 hours to remove the mesh. I award $125 for the work involved; d. For cleaning the curtains: There was no photo evidence provided to show the condition of the curtains. One photo simply showed a set of curtains folded up. The claim is dismissed, and no award is made.
In relation to the exterior grounds, the landlord seeks a contribution of $500 from the tenants towards gardening, weeding and removal of green waste costs incurred of $1,500. The landlord provided photos taken on 1 June 2025 of the garden areas it says required attention at the end of the tenancy and, photos after the garden work was completed. They also produced an invoice which records gardening work done by a contractor between 17 June and 2 July 2025. The invoice records that part of the work involved “trees/bank.”
The landlords confirmed that in or about April 2025, before the tenancy ended, they paid one of the tenants to do gardening work in this area.
The tenants say that it was not reasonable to require them to keep this area tidy because the area was up a steep bank above a wooden retaining wall. The fact that the landlord paid one of the tenants to do work on this area in April 2025 supports their submission.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the garden area does appear to be high up and not easily accessible. The work also involved pruning of bushes and trees. I am not persuaded that this is within the tenants’ responsibilities which is commonly restricted to lawns and tidying/weeding gardens but not pruning or cutting back trees and bushes and in areas that are difficult to access.
There is one area near the bottom of the stairs that was not tidy at the end of the tenancy. However, the landlord dug up this area and replaced it with concrete, for which the tenants are not responsible.
The claim for tidying the grounds and gardens is dismissed.

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 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 following damages claims are not proved and are dismissed: a. Electrical costs to replace rangehood due to a faulty switch and to repair disconnected wire from the ensuite bathroom light: There was insufficient evidence to prove the cause of the problems and establish that the tenants were responsible. For example, there was no evidence from the electrician as to the cause; b. Dent in garage door: There was no photo of the dent and no evidence of the repair cost; c. Blocked drain outside: The landlord says that an exterior drain was blocked by garden debris because the tenants failed to keep the area clean and tidy. They seek a 50% contribution towards the Drain Doctor costs. However, the drain invoice was issued on 11 April 2025. At the same time, the landlord paid for one of the tenants to tidy the garden, thereby taking responsibility for the debris. Therefore, it does not follow that the tenants are responsible for the blocked drain. In any event, there is no report from the contractor to confirm the cause of the blockage. Given that there is a grate covering the drain, I am not persuaded without further evidence that debris entering the drain caused the blockage. For those reasons, the claim is dismissed.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damaged paintwork on a bedroom wall that required plastering, sanding, and painting. The landlord says two walls were affected but they only supplied a photo of one damaged wall. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants are liable for the damage. The landlord provided a quote from a contractor for repairing one wall of $300. However, they did not incur this cost and did the work themselves. They did not supply any receipts for materials. I award $150.
I consider that the amounts ordered are fair and reasonable for the cleaning and repairs conducted by the landlord.
As the landlord has succeeded with some of their claims, I award reimbursement of the filing fee. However, given that neither party has substantially succeeded with the proceedings, I consider that neither is entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406568 — net $578.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$75.00	Oven/stove cleaning
General cleaning including bedroom 1 carpet	$200.00	General cleaning including bedroom 1 carpet
Cleaning: removing mesh from windows	$125.00	Cleaning: removing mesh from windows
Repairs: plaster, sand, and paint bedroom wall	$150.00	Repairs: plaster, sand, and paint bedroom wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$578.00
Bond	$2,350.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$578.00

Order

Dean Roberts-Cox, Emma Stothart, Misionare Maka and Robert Jade Cabatingan to pay Manjit Devgun and Baljinder Devgun $578.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,350.00 (5754066-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Manjit Devgun and Baljinder Devgun: $578.00 Dean Roberts-cox, Emma Stothart, Misionare Maka and Robert Jade Cabatingan: $1,772.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Any party bringing a claim to the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim. The Tenancy Tribunal applies a civil standard of proof, determining matters on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each applicant must prove that it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be supported by other acceptable evidence. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents such as emails, texts, and photographs are an important part of discharging the burden.

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 landlords claim that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including the gardens and grounds. They seek cleaning costs accordingly. The tenants dispute the claim.
The landlords allowed the tenants to keep a cat part way through the tenancy and say that cat hair had not been vacuumed up and the carpets had not been professionally cleaned which was a condition of their consent to the cat recorded in a variation to the tenancy agreement. They also complained that the interior of the premises had a strong smell of oil in the kitchen and bathroom. They presented photos in support of their claims. However, the photos were limited and did not show all the areas for which they have claimed cleaning costs.
The landlords obtained cleaning quotes for various areas inside the house which they submitted in support of their claim. However, they did not actually incur these costs because they did the cleaning work themselves. Therefore, they are not entitled to be recovery of the quoted amounts. However, they are entitled to a reasonable award of compensation to cover their cleaning of the areas which they have proved were not reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
As discussed at the hearing, the landlord is not entitled to require professional carpet cleaning as a condition of having pets. Again, the tenants’ obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Professional cleaning is not necessarily required to achieve that result.
I have carefully considered all the available evidence and award the following amounts: a. For the oven, rangehood and stovetop: Some of the landlords’ photos were taken during the cleaning process and there was no photo clearly showing the condition inside the oven. They say the cleaning took 4 hours. I award $75 based on the photos provided. b. For general cleaning of the house, including carpets: The landlords supplied limited photos taken of the kitchen cupboards, the entrance floor, the lounge lightshades, the shower drain, shower box and the vanity. There was one photo showing carpet stains in a bedroom. The photo of the lounge carpet photo was taken at a distance, so stains were not visible. However, the pre-tenancy condition report records existing stains on the lounge carpet. There were no photos showing the presence of cat hair. The landlord had no receipts for hiring a Rug Doctor and the cleaning solution. Based on the photo evidence of the cleaning required, I award $200; c. For removing mesh from the windows: The landlord says it took 5 hours to remove the mesh. I award $125 for the work involved; d. For cleaning the curtains: There was no photo evidence provided to show the condition of the curtains. One photo simply showed a set of curtains folded up. The claim is dismissed, and no award is made.
In relation to the exterior grounds, the landlord seeks a contribution of $500 from the tenants towards gardening, weeding and removal of green waste costs incurred of $1,500. The landlord provided photos taken on 1 June 2025 of the garden areas it says required attention at the end of the tenancy and, photos after the garden work was completed. They also produced an invoice which records gardening work done by a contractor between 17 June and 2 July 2025. The invoice records that part of the work involved “trees/bank.”
The landlords confirmed that in or about April 2025, before the tenancy ended, they paid one of the tenants to do gardening work in this area.
The tenants say that it was not reasonable to require them to keep this area tidy because the area was up a steep bank above a wooden retaining wall. The fact that the landlord paid one of the tenants to do work on this area in April 2025 supports their submission.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the garden area does appear to be high up and not easily accessible. The work also involved pruning of bushes and trees. I am not persuaded that this is within the tenants’ responsibilities which is commonly restricted to lawns and tidying/weeding gardens but not pruning or cutting back trees and bushes and in areas that are difficult to access.
There is one area near the bottom of the stairs that was not tidy at the end of the tenancy. However, the landlord dug up this area and replaced it with concrete, for which the tenants are not responsible.
The claim for tidying the grounds and gardens is dismissed.

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 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 following damages claims are not proved and are dismissed: a. Electrical costs to replace rangehood due to a faulty switch and to repair disconnected wire from the ensuite bathroom light: There was insufficient evidence to prove the cause of the problems and establish that the tenants were responsible. For example, there was no evidence from the electrician as to the cause; b. Dent in garage door: There was no photo of the dent and no evidence of the repair cost; c. Blocked drain outside: The landlord says that an exterior drain was blocked by garden debris because the tenants failed to keep the area clean and tidy. They seek a 50% contribution towards the Drain Doctor costs. However, the drain invoice was issued on 11 April 2025. At the same time, the landlord paid for one of the tenants to tidy the garden, thereby taking responsibility for the debris. Therefore, it does not follow that the tenants are responsible for the blocked drain. In any event, there is no report from the contractor to confirm the cause of the blockage. Given that there is a grate covering the drain, I am not persuaded without further evidence that debris entering the drain caused the blockage. For those reasons, the claim is dismissed.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damaged paintwork on a bedroom wall that required plastering, sanding, and painting. The landlord says two walls were affected but they only supplied a photo of one damaged wall. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants are liable for the damage. The landlord provided a quote from a contractor for repairing one wall of $300. However, they did not incur this cost and did the work themselves. They did not supply any receipts for materials. I award $150.
I consider that the amounts ordered are fair and reasonable for the cleaning and repairs conducted by the landlord.
As the landlord has succeeded with some of their claims, I award reimbursement of the filing fee. However, given that neither party has substantially succeeded with the proceedings, I consider that neither is entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406568 — Cleanliness at 80B Stewart Drive, Newlands, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406568 — Cleanliness at 80B Stewart Drive, Newlands, Wellington 6037

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