What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415496 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5415496?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $198.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415496?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415496?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13346310-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415496 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5415496?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $198.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415496?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415496?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13346310-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5415496 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415496 — net $388.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$50.00	20. The claim is proven.
Painting	$140.00	Painting
Water rates	$198.00	Water rates
Net award	$388.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$388.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: Far North Circle Real Estate Limited: $388.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,012.00

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 25 November 2025 pursuant to a termination notice issued by the tenant.
Ms Hirst (Ray White [Event location suppressed] came to the property on the afternoon of 25 November and carried out an inspection. She asked [The tenant/s] to sign a bond release form.
[The tenant/s] says that Ms Hirst told her that there were no problems and that she would get her bond back in full. She says that the bond release form that she signed showed release of the bond to her in full.
About a week later, Ms Hirst advised that charges for cleaning, painting (kitchen wall) and water would be deducted from the bond.
Ms Hirst disputed the deductions.
The landlord and tenant both filed Tenancy Tribunal applications on 16 December 2025. The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond in full and compensation for inconvenience and stress. The landlord’s application seeks cleaning, painting, and water costs.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 25 March 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Hirst represented the landlord. Is it proven that the landlord agreed to release the bond in full to [The tenant/s] on 25 November 2025?
The Tenancy Tribunal is required to determine disputes “according to the general principles of law relating to matter”. 1
A sound and well-established general principle of law is that adults should be held to agreements that they enter into.
A related legal principle is estoppel – if one person makes a clear representation to another person, and that other person relies on that representation to their detriment, then the person who made the representation should not be allowed to ‘go back on their word’.
As noted above, [The tenant/s] said that Ray White [Event location suppressed] agreed to release all of the bond to her on 25 November 2025.
Ms Hirst disputed this. Ms Hirst said that she asked [The tenant/s] to sign the bond form, as a matter of convenience, but there were no figures on the form. She said that there would be a water charges (at the very least) that she had 1 Section 85(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) not yet calculated, and on that day, [The tenant/s] still had some rubbish to remove. The final distribution of the bond could not be known.
Ms Hirst said that their practice is to have the tenant sign the form ‘blank’, then contact the tenant to talk about what deductions (if any) will be made from the bond.
On the information available to me, it is not proven that the bond form was completed when [The tenant/s] signed it. I acknowledge Ms Hirst’s argument that there is no indication that the amounts on the form were amended or changed. The figures were only filled in once, after [The tenant/s] had already signed.
This means that there is no proven agreement that Ray White would release the bond in full to [The tenant/s]. The usual principles apply. [The tenant/s] is entitled to the bond at the end of the tenancy unless there are any proven costs owed to the landlord.
Ray White [Event location suppressed]’s practice of having the tenant sign a blank bond form is practical and convenient, but less than ideal. Certainly, from the tenant’s perspective it is very risky to sign and hand over a blank document. At the very least it can (and did in this instance) create the opportunity for lack of clarity and misunderstandings. Water
Tenants are liable for water that they consume during the tenancy. 2
The water meter at this property malfunctioned during the tenancy and [The [Event location suppressed] District Council] replaced it.
The landlord’s claim seeks the water use recorded on the new meter to the end of the tenancy, based on a meter reading at the end of the tenancy.
The claim is proven. Cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 3
The claim seeks $200 for cleaning of the shower and the kitchen wall.
The kitchen wall next to the rangehood was stained. The landlord’s cleaner attempted to remove the discoloration, but this was not successful. 2 Section 38(3) RTA 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
Ms Hirst said that the shower needed cleaning and that the shower gully trap was clogged with hair.
The final inspection photographs show that the premises, including the shower, were in reasonably clean and tidy condition, except for the discoloration on the kitchen wall.
[The tenant/s] was concerned that the cleaning work was carried out on 3-5 December, more than a week after the end of her tenancy. In my view this is a very reasonable timeframe for professional cleaning after the end of a tenancy, and the landlord’s photographs show the condition of the premises immediately after [The tenant/s] vacated.
It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to attempt to remove the discoloration by cleaning the kitchen wall. I will award $50 for this cleaning work. It is a small area, but specialist cleaning products were used. Damage
As noted above, the discoloration could not be removed by cleaning. The wall was damaged.
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that she attempted to clean this area using various products. The products may have damaged the paintwork.
The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and it occurred during this tenancy. The entry photographs of this area show that the wall is in good condition.
The claim is proven.
The amount claimed, $150, represents that labour cost only of this work. The cost is fair and reasonable. Filing fee, name suppression
Both parties were partially successful in their applications. The outcome in terms of recovering the filing fee is neutral.
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. I agree that it is appropriate to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression in this instance. 4 The parties had a genuine dispute about release of the bond at the end of the tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415496 — net $388.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$50.00	20. The claim is proven.
Painting	$140.00	Painting
Water rates	$198.00	Water rates
Net award	$388.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$388.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: Far North Circle Real Estate Limited: $388.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,012.00

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 25 November 2025 pursuant to a termination notice issued by the tenant.
Ms Hirst (Ray White [Event location suppressed] came to the property on the afternoon of 25 November and carried out an inspection. She asked [The tenant/s] to sign a bond release form.
[The tenant/s] says that Ms Hirst told her that there were no problems and that she would get her bond back in full. She says that the bond release form that she signed showed release of the bond to her in full.
About a week later, Ms Hirst advised that charges for cleaning, painting (kitchen wall) and water would be deducted from the bond.
Ms Hirst disputed the deductions.
The landlord and tenant both filed Tenancy Tribunal applications on 16 December 2025. The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond in full and compensation for inconvenience and stress. The landlord’s application seeks cleaning, painting, and water costs.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 25 March 2026. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Hirst represented the landlord. Is it proven that the landlord agreed to release the bond in full to [The tenant/s] on 25 November 2025?
The Tenancy Tribunal is required to determine disputes “according to the general principles of law relating to matter”. 1
A sound and well-established general principle of law is that adults should be held to agreements that they enter into.
A related legal principle is estoppel – if one person makes a clear representation to another person, and that other person relies on that representation to their detriment, then the person who made the representation should not be allowed to ‘go back on their word’.
As noted above, [The tenant/s] said that Ray White [Event location suppressed] agreed to release all of the bond to her on 25 November 2025.
Ms Hirst disputed this. Ms Hirst said that she asked [The tenant/s] to sign the bond form, as a matter of convenience, but there were no figures on the form. She said that there would be a water charges (at the very least) that she had 1 Section 85(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) not yet calculated, and on that day, [The tenant/s] still had some rubbish to remove. The final distribution of the bond could not be known.
Ms Hirst said that their practice is to have the tenant sign the form ‘blank’, then contact the tenant to talk about what deductions (if any) will be made from the bond.
On the information available to me, it is not proven that the bond form was completed when [The tenant/s] signed it. I acknowledge Ms Hirst’s argument that there is no indication that the amounts on the form were amended or changed. The figures were only filled in once, after [The tenant/s] had already signed.
This means that there is no proven agreement that Ray White would release the bond in full to [The tenant/s]. The usual principles apply. [The tenant/s] is entitled to the bond at the end of the tenancy unless there are any proven costs owed to the landlord.
Ray White [Event location suppressed]’s practice of having the tenant sign a blank bond form is practical and convenient, but less than ideal. Certainly, from the tenant’s perspective it is very risky to sign and hand over a blank document. At the very least it can (and did in this instance) create the opportunity for lack of clarity and misunderstandings. Water
Tenants are liable for water that they consume during the tenancy. 2
The water meter at this property malfunctioned during the tenancy and [The [Event location suppressed] District Council] replaced it.
The landlord’s claim seeks the water use recorded on the new meter to the end of the tenancy, based on a meter reading at the end of the tenancy.
The claim is proven. Cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. 3
The claim seeks $200 for cleaning of the shower and the kitchen wall.
The kitchen wall next to the rangehood was stained. The landlord’s cleaner attempted to remove the discoloration, but this was not successful. 2 Section 38(3) RTA 3 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA
Ms Hirst said that the shower needed cleaning and that the shower gully trap was clogged with hair.
The final inspection photographs show that the premises, including the shower, were in reasonably clean and tidy condition, except for the discoloration on the kitchen wall.
[The tenant/s] was concerned that the cleaning work was carried out on 3-5 December, more than a week after the end of her tenancy. In my view this is a very reasonable timeframe for professional cleaning after the end of a tenancy, and the landlord’s photographs show the condition of the premises immediately after [The tenant/s] vacated.
It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to attempt to remove the discoloration by cleaning the kitchen wall. I will award $50 for this cleaning work. It is a small area, but specialist cleaning products were used. Damage
As noted above, the discoloration could not be removed by cleaning. The wall was damaged.
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that she attempted to clean this area using various products. The products may have damaged the paintwork.
The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and it occurred during this tenancy. The entry photographs of this area show that the wall is in good condition.
The claim is proven.
The amount claimed, $150, represents that labour cost only of this work. The cost is fair and reasonable. Filing fee, name suppression
Both parties were partially successful in their applications. The outcome in terms of recovering the filing fee is neutral.
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression. I agree that it is appropriate to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to grant name suppression in this instance. 4 The parties had a genuine dispute about release of the bond at the end of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415496 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415496 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

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