What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414208 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5414208?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414208?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974750-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414208 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5414208?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414208?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974750-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 4, 180 Inglis Road, Okuku, RD 3, Okuku 7473, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5414208 — Cleanliness

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenancy shall end at 11.59 pm 30 January 2026 or such earlier date as the tenant shall nominate by emailing notice to the landlord at least 24-hours prior to the earlier termination date.
The parties withdraw all claims against each other.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
Having discussed their claims, the parties agreed that the tenancy shall end on 30 January 2026 or such earlier date as the tenant may choose to nominate by emailing notice to the landlord at least 24-hours prior to the earlier termination date.
The parties agreed to withdraw their claims against each other. Reasonably clean and tidy
As discussed at the hearing, the tenants are required to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the hearing. There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. A tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner and tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. e. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. f. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost. Fair wear and tear
A tenant is not liable for the cost of repairs which are the result of fair wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. The case of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94 (as cited in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by Stewart Benson p 122) provides a useful summary of the law: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition.... [W]here a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.” Name suppression
The parties agreed on the terms of this order during the hearing. The parties could have been referred to mediation so that their agreement could be recorded in a mediated order. In that event, the order and the parties’ names would not have been published. Referral to mediation would have postponed the resolution of this dispute and would have involved both parties in the cost of further time spent at a mediation conference.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties have been able to come to this agreement of their own free will, that it is fair on the evidence which it has heard and that it is a satisfactory outcome for both parties.
As the parties reached agreement by consent at the hearing and there are no matters of public interest in this order, it is appropriate that the parties’ names are suppressed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenancy shall end at 11.59 pm 30 January 2026 or such earlier date as the tenant shall nominate by emailing notice to the landlord at least 24-hours prior to the earlier termination date.
The parties withdraw all claims against each other.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
Having discussed their claims, the parties agreed that the tenancy shall end on 30 January 2026 or such earlier date as the tenant may choose to nominate by emailing notice to the landlord at least 24-hours prior to the earlier termination date.
The parties agreed to withdraw their claims against each other. Reasonably clean and tidy
As discussed at the hearing, the tenants are required to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the hearing. There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have decided that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel or motel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. A tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner and tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. e. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. f. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises. The standard of “reasonably clean” anticipates that some parts of the premises may not be perfect.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling; for example, by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see section 45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost. Fair wear and tear
A tenant is not liable for the cost of repairs which are the result of fair wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. The case of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94 (as cited in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by Stewart Benson p 122) provides a useful summary of the law: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition.... [W]here a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.” Name suppression
The parties agreed on the terms of this order during the hearing. The parties could have been referred to mediation so that their agreement could be recorded in a mediated order. In that event, the order and the parties’ names would not have been published. Referral to mediation would have postponed the resolution of this dispute and would have involved both parties in the cost of further time spent at a mediation conference.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties have been able to come to this agreement of their own free will, that it is fair on the evidence which it has heard and that it is a satisfactory outcome for both parties.
As the parties reached agreement by consent at the hearing and there are no matters of public interest in this order, it is appropriate that the parties’ names are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414208 — Cleanliness at Room 4, 180 Inglis Road, Okuku, RD 3, Okuku 7473,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414208 — Cleanliness at Room 4, 180 Inglis Road, Okuku, RD 3, Okuku 7473,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions