What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412637 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Shoreline Property

How much money was awarded in case 5412637?

Cleaning: $1,391.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Supply (Dulux- 4 Ltres: $132.00 awarded to landlord; Painting (Dining Walls, Garage Ceili…: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Heat blisters on a laminate bench in…: $506.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412637?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412637?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13385415-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412637 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Shoreline Property

How much money was awarded in case 5412637?

Cleaning: $1,391.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Supply (Dulux- 4 Ltres: $132.00 awarded to landlord; Painting (Dining Walls, Garage Ceili…: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Heat blisters on a laminate bench in…: $506.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412637?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412637?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13385415-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 McCathie Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5412637 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5412637 — net $2,642.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement: Garage lock (supply replacement	$350.00	Lock/key replacement: Garage lock (supply replacement
Lock/key replacement: Key cutting (corridor door lock ground floor	$8.00	Lock/key replacement: Key cutting (corridor door lock ground floor
Cleaning: Basic move-out cleaning, Inside window and window frame clean, Wall and ceiling, and carpet wash	$1,391.50	Cleaning: Basic move-out cleaning, Inside window and window frame clean, Wall and ceiling, and carpet wash
Painting (dining walls, garage ceiling	$255.00	Painting (dining walls, garage ceiling
Paint supply (Dulux- 4 ltres	$132.00	Paint supply (Dulux- 4 ltres
Repairs: Heat blisters on a laminate bench in the garage	$506.00	Repairs: Heat blisters on a laminate bench in the garage
Net award	$2,642.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,642.50

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Shoreline Property Management Limited As The Agent For Lalit And [The landlord/s] $2,642.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,642.50 (BN-17050959) to Shoreline Property Management Limited As The Agent For Lalit And [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1.957.50 (BN-17050959) to [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference on 31 March 2026.

The landlord is represented by Ms Zaikina, property manager. The tenants are Mr [The tenant/s], Ms [The tenant/s], and Mr [The tenant/s]. All parties attended the hearing via audio-only conference. Mr [The tenant/s] spoke on behalf of the tenants.

There were initial technical difficulties in connecting all parties on the tenants’ side, and the hearing commenced approximately 30 minutes later than scheduled. I record my appreciation for Ms Zaikina’s patience during this process. Background

The tenancy commenced on 5 June 2023 and ended on 13 October 2025.

At the start of the tenancy arrangement, there were six tenants residing at the property. Approximately one year into the tenancy, three of those tenants exited the tenancy by agreement with the landlord. From that point onward, the remaining tenants were the three tenants in today’s hearing who continued as the sole tenants for the remainder of the tenancy until its termination.

The house was constructed in or about August 2013. I draw this inference from the pre-tenancy inspection report dated 14 May 2022, which includes a photograph of a Metering Installation Certificate dated 20 August 2013. This indicates that the property is not new and is likely to have been occupied by multiple tenants or families over time.

While the house is not newly built, I am satisfied that it was reasonably well- maintained at the commencement of the tenancy, based on the pre-tenancy inspection report. The landlord’s submissions and evidence

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

The landlord’s claims are summarised as follows a. Garage lock replacement: $350.00 b. Key cutting: $8.00 c. Painting (walls and garage ceiling): $510.00 d. Paint supply: $132.00 e. Curtain cleaning: $1,035.00 f. Cleaning (various categories including general cleaning, windows, walls, carpets): amounts totalling $1,391.50 and additional itemised cleaning costs g. Kitchen stone benchtop repair: $667.00 h. Garage laminate benchtop repair: $506.00

Ms Zaikina relies on the final inspection report dated 15 October 2025, photographic evidence taken at or shortly after the end of the tenancy, and invoices from contractors engaged to clean and repair the property. These documents were provided to the tenants prior to the hearing and form part of the landlord’s evidential bundle.

Ms Zaikina states that upon conducting the final inspection, she observed that the property was left in a significantly unclean condition. She described the premises as containing a substantial amount of rubbish both inside and outside the dwelling, including in the garden shed. She also noted that rubbish and recycling bins were full at the conclusion of the tenancy.

She further submits that multiple areas of the property required extensive cleaning. These included the kitchen, bathrooms, walls, ceilings, window frames, and floors. She states that the carpets were stained, the oven and stove were greasy, and the extractor fan and surrounding surfaces were affected by oil residue. She also noted that the curtains were stained and exhibited signs of mould and oil accumulation, particularly at the upper portions.

Ms Zaikina submits that, due to the condition in which the premises were left, the landlord was required to engage professional cleaners to carry out a full end-of-tenancy clean. She states that the cleaning involved multiple workers over several days and included wall and ceiling cleaning, carpet cleaning, curtain rail cleaning, window and frame cleaning, and removal of rubbish.

In relation to the walls and ceilings, Ms Zaikina submits that there was visible discolouration and marking, particularly in areas where furniture had been placed against the walls. She also states that the garage ceiling was heavily discoloured due to smoke exposure, which she attributed to the tenants’ use of the garage space. She submits that repainting was required to restore these areas.

Ms Zaikina also relies on evidence of damage to fixtures and surfaces within the property. In particular, she submits that the kitchen stone benchtop had multiple cracks and chips that were not consistent with normal wear and tear. She states that these defects were identified during or after the final inspection and were documented in photographs.

She further submits that the laminate benchtop in the garage exhibited heat damage, including blistering, which required repair. This, she says, is indicative of improper use and is not attributable to ordinary wear.

In addition, Ms Zaikina submits that certain items were not returned at the end of the tenancy, including keys for the garage and corridor door. As a result, the landlord incurred costs for lock replacement and key cutting. She states that these costs were necessary to secure the property.

Ms Zaikina also refers to ongoing correspondence with the tenants following the final inspection. In that correspondence, she advised the tenants of the condition of the property, the required remedial work, and the likely costs involved. She states that the tenants were given an opportunity to address outstanding issues, including removal of rubbish and return of keys and equipment, but that not all matters were resolved.

She submits that the costs claimed are reasonable and supported by invoices from independent contractors. She says that the work undertaken was necessary to return the property to a condition suitable for re-letting.

In summary, the landlord’s position is that the tenants left the premises in a condition that required substantial cleaning and repair, and that the costs incurred are properly recoverable from the tenants as they exceed fair wear and tear. The tenants’ submissions and evidence

Mr [The tenant/s] spoke on behalf of all three tenants. The tenants oppose the majority of the landlord’s claims and submit that they have complied with their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).

The tenants’ primary position is that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy, as required by section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. Mr Singh submits that the tenants undertook cleaning prior to vacating the property, including vacuuming carpets, cleaning bathrooms, and removing a substantial portion of rubbish.

The tenants accept that some items remained at the property at the time of the final inspection. However, Mr [The tenant/s] submits that these were minor and could have been addressed had the tenants been given a further opportunity. He says that the landlord has overstated the extent of cleaning required and has elected to engage professional cleaners to achieve a higher standard than that required by law.

The tenants submit that the Act does not require tenants to leave a property in a professionally cleaned or “as new” condition, and that the landlord cannot recover costs incurred to improve the property beyond a reasonably clean and tidy standard.

In relation to the condition of the walls, ceilings, and general surfaces, Mr [The tenant/s] submits that any discolouration, marks, or wear are consistent with fair wear and tear, particularly given the length of the tenancy and the age of the property. Mr Singh states that marks on the walls were caused by ordinary use, including furniture placement, and could be addressed through ordinary cleaning.

The tenants also dispute the landlord’s claims regarding the curtains. Mr [The tenant/s] submits that the condition of the curtains, including any oil residue, had been raised with the property manager during the tenancy. He says that there was an understanding that cleaning could be arranged, and that it is unreasonable for the landlord to now seek to recover the full cost of professional curtain cleaning.

In relation to the kitchen stone benchtop, the tenants dispute that they caused the cracks. Mr [The tenant/s] submits that these defects were not clearly identified during the final inspection and were not supported by evidence of the condition at the start of the tenancy. He says that without comparative entry photographs, it cannot be established that the damage occurred during their tenancy.

The tenants further submit that, even if the cracks developed during the tenancy, they may be attributable to fair wear and tear or the age and prior use of the property. Mr [The tenant/s] notes that the house may have been occupied by multiple tenants over time.

The tenants also rely on the entry condition report and state that they hold a digital copy of that report. They submit that this document should be used as the primary reference point for assessing any alleged deterioration.

In relation to cleaning costs, the tenants challenge the scope and quantum of the landlord’s claims. They submit that the invoices reflect a comprehensive or commercial-level clean rather than the level of cleaning required to meet the statutory standard. They also question whether some of the work undertaken relates to pre-existing issues or improvements made by the landlord.

The tenants accept liability for certain items. In particular, they do not dispute the costs associated with replacement of the garage lock, key cutting, and repair of the laminate benchtop in the garage.

Overall, the tenants submit that many of the landlord’s claims relate to fair wear and tear, lack sufficient evidential support, or represent betterment. They therefore seek the return of the balance of the bond and dismissal of the disputed claims.

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. 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. My assessment

The starting point is section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Act, which requires tenants to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This does not require the premises to be returned in a professionally cleaned or “as new” condition. Nor does it entitle a landlord to recover costs incurred to improve the property beyond its condition at the start of the tenancy, allowing for fair wear and tear.

In assessing the competing submissions, I have considered the photographic evidence with care. The photographs show that, while some cleaning was undertaken by the tenants, a number of areas of the property were left in a condition that falls short of the required standard. In particular, there was visible rubbish remaining on the premises and areas requiring further cleaning.

I accept the landlord’s submission that additional cleaning was necessary. However, I am not satisfied that all of the cleaning work undertaken was required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The evidence from the cleaning contractor indicates that some work was directed at achieving a higher standard, including attempting to remove staining and discolouration that could not be fully remedied.

The distinction between restoring the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition and improving it to a near-new or “100%” condition is important. The tenants are only liable for the former. Where the evidence does not clearly distinguish between these two categories of work, I must assess what is reasonable in the circumstances.

In relation to the walls and ceilings, the photographs show some discolouration and marking, particularly in areas where furniture had been placed. I accept that some of this is attributable to ordinary use over the course of the tenancy, especially given the age of the property. However, there is also evidence of additional marking and unevenness that justifies a limited contribution toward repainting.

As to the curtains, I accept the tenants’ submission that the cleaning undertaken appears to go beyond what is required to meet the statutory standard. The evidence suggests that the cleaning was aimed at restoring the curtains to a higher condition rather than addressing a failure to leave them reasonably clean and tidy. In those circumstances, the cost is not recoverable.

Overall, this case illustrates a common issue at the end of tenancies, where the standard required by the Act differs from the standard a landlord may wish to achieve before re-letting a property. The Tribunal must ensure that tenants are not required to bear the cost of improvements or betterment, while still holding them accountable for failing to meet their statutory obligations

Are the tenants 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. My assessment

In relation to the kitchen stone benchtop, the landlord bears the burden of proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is not attributable to fair wear and tear. The absence of clear entry photographs showing the condition of the benchtop at the start of the tenancy is significant. While the exit photographs show cracks, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that these arose during the tenancy or that they are not consistent with wear over time, given the age and use of the property.

In relation to the laminate benchtop in the garage and the lock and key replacement, these items are not disputed by the tenants and are therefore awarded. Conclusion

Doing the best I can with the available evidence, I have assessed each item claimed by the landlord and determined what amounts are reasonably attributable to the tenants’ breach of their obligations.

The landlord is entitled to the following amounts: a. Garage lock replacement: $350.00 b. Key cutting: $8.00 c. Painting (reduced): $255.00 d. Paint supply: $132.00 e. Cleaning: $1,391.50 f. Laminate benchtop repair: $506.00.

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. Filing fee

I do not consider that the landlord has substantially succeeded in the application. Accordingly, I decline to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5412637 — net $2,642.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement: Garage lock (supply replacement	$350.00	Lock/key replacement: Garage lock (supply replacement
Lock/key replacement: Key cutting (corridor door lock ground floor	$8.00	Lock/key replacement: Key cutting (corridor door lock ground floor
Cleaning: Basic move-out cleaning, Inside window and window frame clean, Wall and ceiling, and carpet wash	$1,391.50	Cleaning: Basic move-out cleaning, Inside window and window frame clean, Wall and ceiling, and carpet wash
Painting (dining walls, garage ceiling	$255.00	Painting (dining walls, garage ceiling
Paint supply (Dulux- 4 ltres	$132.00	Paint supply (Dulux- 4 ltres
Repairs: Heat blisters on a laminate bench in the garage	$506.00	Repairs: Heat blisters on a laminate bench in the garage
Net award	$2,642.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,642.50

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Shoreline Property Management Limited As The Agent For Lalit And [The landlord/s] $2,642.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference on 31 March 2026.

The tenancy commenced on 5 June 2023 and ended on 13 October 2025.

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

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

In relation to the laminate benchtop in the garage and the lock and key replacement, these items are not disputed by the tenants and are therefore awarded. Conclusion

I do not consider that the landlord has substantially succeeded in the application. Accordingly, I decline to reimburse the landlord’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412637 — Cleanliness at 5 McCathie Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412637 — Cleanliness at 5 McCathie Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions