Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5410500 — Cleanliness at 10 Harry Ward Place, Henderson, Auckland 0610
Published 3 May 2026 · Application 5410500
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
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
- $240.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $240.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning: Kitchen | $240.00 | Cleaning: Kitchen | |
| Net award | $240.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $240.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5410500 — net $240.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning: Kitchen
- Amount
- $240.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning: Kitchen
Net award
Landlord $240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $240.00
Dismissed claims
- Property Damage
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Michelle Gherbini and Travis Gherbini must pay Alina Sun $240.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- The Landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
- The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
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 alleged that the tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and sought compensation of $480.00, claiming that four days were required to clean the property. The landlord submitted multiple photographs showing areas of the kitchen in an unclean state, as well as a single photograph of a wall in the small bedroom. However, no photographic evidence was provided in relation to the bathroom, despite it being identified as one of the primary areas requiring cleaning.
- In assessing this claim, I note that the absence of comprehensive photographic evidence—particularly of the bathroom—makes it difficult to verify the extent of cleaning required or to justify the claim that four full days of cleaning were necessary. The evidence provided does not sufficiently support the scale of work alleged. I find that the claim has only been partially substantiated. I therefore award the landlord 50% of the amount claimed, being $240.00.
- The amounts awarded 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: damaged carpet, damaged broken glass, blocked drain and broken kitchen and master bedroom door.
- The landlord claimed $2,450.00 for the replacement of carpet, alleging multiple stains across the master bedroom, smaller bedrooms, lounge, and main bedroom. The landlord stated that the carpet was new at the time the property was purchased in 2015 and submitted that various cleaning attempts of the stains using different products were unsuccessful.
- The Landlord did not undertake a pre-tenancy inspection report. Instead they provided photographs from the start of the tenancy, taken when the property was staged for sale. As these photographs show the premises furnished, significant portions of the carpet were obscured, limiting their usefulness in establishing the original condition of the carpet. In the absence of a comprehensive pre-tenancy inspection report or clear photographic evidence showing the full carpet, it is difficult to make a reliable comparison with the post- tenancy condition or to determine when the stains arose.
- In addition, I note that the landlord did not engage a professional carpet cleaning service to attempt stain removal before seeking full replacement costs. This is a relevant consideration, as replacement represents a significant remedy that should generally follow reasonable efforts to mitigate loss.
- Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the alleged damage to the carpet was caused by the tenant during the tenancy. The evidential gaps— particularly the lack of clear pre-tenancy condition records—are significant.
- The claim for carpet replacement is dismissed.
- The landlord also claimed $644.00 in compensation for broken doors in the kitchen and master bedroom. An invoice was provided to show the repair costs. However, no clear photographic evidence of the damage was provided, nor were there any pre-tenancy photographs or inspection reports demonstrating the original condition of the doors. In the absence of such evidence, the claim cannot be substantiated.
- The claim is dismissed.
- The landlord further claimed $63.25 for broken glass, stating that the damage occurred when the landlord was required to break the glass after the Tenant failed to return the keys. On the landlord’s own account, this damage was caused by the landlord rather than the tenant. In addition, no evidence was provided to confirm the damage. Accordingly, due to the lack of evidence, this claim is dismissed.
- The landlord claimed $69.00 on the basis that the Tenant blocked a drain during the tenancy. In support of this claim, the landlord provided a text message indicating that the tenant agreed to pay for the damage. However, no invoice or receipt was produced to verify that the repair was carried out or to substantiate the amount claimed. While the text message may suggest some acknowledgment, it is insufficient on its own to establish the actual loss incurred. In the absence of supporting documentation, I am unable to make an order for payment.
- The claim is dismissed.
- As the Landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claims, name suppression is not granted to the Landlord.
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: cleaning
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5410500?
The tribunal order states: Michelle Gherbini and Travis Gherbini must pay Alina Sun $240.00 immediately,
How much money was awarded in case 5410500?
Cleaning: $240.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5410500?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5410500?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13533894-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.