Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5408332 — Cleanliness at 13 Beltany Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019
Decided 28 March 2026 · Published 28 March 2026 · Application 5408332
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
A Aiolupotea
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,530.54
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,530.54
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Water rates: By consent | $229.24 | 2. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. | |
| Repairs to oven | $500.00 | Repairs to oven | |
| Cleaning | $1,773.30 | Cleaning | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,530.54 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,530.54 |
Claims and awards for application 5408332 — net $2,530.54 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Water rates: By consent
- Amount
- $229.24
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- 2. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Repairs to oven
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Repairs to oven
Cleaning
- Amount
- $1,773.30
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $2,530.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,530.54
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Pili Amosa, Stella To'o, Christopher To'o, Alanah Maynard, Tutogi (Togi) To'o and Albert Fomai must pay Mgmt Market Limited $2,530.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- At the hearing the Tenant agreed to pay the water rates claimed by the Landlord.
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.
- The Landlord submitted that the Tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. It was claimed that cleaning was required to the shower door, gas stovetop, windows, dishwasher, and light fittings (due to fly residue). The Landlord provided exit inspection photographs together with a detailed invoice in support of the cleaning costs incurred. The photographic evidence showed, among other things, hair in the bathroom basin, marks inside cupboards, dirty shower doors and door handles, toilet paper left beside the basin, scuff marks on a bedroom wall, dirt on the shower floor, marks on the dishwasher, unclean areas within the bathroom sink cupboard, marks on door frames and windowsills, black marks on the floor lino, dirt on the kitchen bench, and cardboard and miscellaneous items left in the rubbish bin.
- The Tenant disputed the claim, stating that they had spent approximately one week cleaning the premises prior to vacating. The Tenant further submitted that the Landlord did not raise any concerns regarding additional cleaning at the end of the tenancy and maintained that the property was left in a clean and tidy condition.
- Having considered the evidence, I find on the basis of the exit inspection report and photographic material that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I am satisfied that the cleaning invoice appropriately itemises the work undertaken, and I find the costs claimed to be reasonable having regard to the size of the premises and the condition depicted in the photographs.
- The amounts ordered are 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Cracked stove top, The Landlord claimed for repairs to the damaged cracked stove top which she submitted was not damaged at the start of the tenancy. Entry inspection video was provided which briefly showed the stove top had no damage. They provided an exit inspection photograph which showed the cracks. They submitted they were never informed of the damage during the tenancy. The landlord took over management of the property later in the tenancy but did not have any record of the Tenant reporting the damage to the Landlord.
- The Tenant submitted that the stovetop was already damaged at the commencement of the tenancy. The Tenant stated that this was reported immediately by telephone to the Landlord, who was overseas at the time, and that she was directed to contact the Landlord’s daughter. The Tenant said they primarily used the main oven in another kitchen. They also submitted that when cleaning the stovetop, part of the surface coating came away. The Tenant contended that, upon close inspection of the entry condition video, the alleged crack would have been visible.
- Having considered the evidence, I find the entry condition video to be persuasive in indicating that the crack was not present at the start of the tenancy and was more likely caused during the tenancy. I find that zooming into the video does not assist, as the image becomes unclear and does not reliably show the alleged damage. I also find that the Tenant ought to have taken reasonable steps to follow up with the Landlord when no response was received, as this may have resulted in a record of the damage prior to the end of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
- The amounts ordered are proved.
- I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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 or worse 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.
- As Mgmt Market Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
- MGMT MARKET LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5408332?
The tribunal order states: Pili Amosa, Stella To'o, Christopher To'o, Alanah Maynard, Tutogi (Togi) To'o
How much money was awarded in case 5408332?
Cleaning: $1,773.30 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $229.24 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5408332?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5408332?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13357728-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.