What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5417488 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 5417488?

Cleaning: $304.75 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss of amenity and en…: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417488?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13752041-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5417488 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 5417488?

Cleaning: $304.75 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Loss of amenity and en…: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417488?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417488?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13752041-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5417488 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5417488 — net $495.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: 5 hours	$304.75		Cleaning: 5 hours
Compensation: Loss of amenity and enjoyment of the		$800.00	Loss of amenity and enjoyment of the
Total award	$304.75	$800.00
Net award	$495.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$495.25

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5417488 — net $495.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning: 5 hours	$304.75		Cleaning: 5 hours
Compensation: Loss of amenity and enjoyment of the		$800.00	Loss of amenity and enjoyment of the
Total award	$304.75	$800.00
Net award	$495.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$495.25

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Grenadier Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Xiangai Meng must pay [The tenant/s] $817.15 immediately calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed])to the tenant immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 June 2026. Mr Toa and Ms Hooper represented the landlord. For convenience I will refer to the parties in the singular.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning at the end of the tenancy to be paid from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has applied for compensation for the loss of amenity arising from several alleged breaches by the landlord. Background
The tenancy started on 6 January 2023 and ended on 13 December 2025.
During the tenancy various maintenance issues arose. The landlord responded to the matters the tenants raised and has produced invoices in evidence to prove the repairs undertaken.
A bathroom renovation was completed during the tenancy. The tenant was aware of that before the tenancy started but the work lasted longer than the tenant thought. Also, a shower tray cracked towards the end of the tenancy and was not repaired before the tenancy ended.
There were other issues that arose which the tenant considers the landlord should compensate them for.
The tenant’s application was lodged about 3 months after the tenancy ended. There were no applications for work orders during the tenancy nor did the tenant serve any 14-day breach notices on the landlord requiring repairs.
I confirm that I have considered all the evidence the parties provided including the video evidence the tenant provided at the hearing, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
I note that this was the first time the tenant has rented a property in New Zealand. The tenant said in evidence they were unaware of the laws concerning residential tenancies, nor were they aware of the Tribunal as a forum for making claims. Issues
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are these: •Has the landlord proved a claim for cleaning costs? If so, how much should be awarded? •Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for a loss of amenity / loss of enjoyment of the tenancy? If so, what would be reasonable compensation for that loss? Law
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). Compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion Has the landlord proved a claim for cleaning costs? If so, how much should be awarded? 1 [2020] NZDC 17667
The landlord produced photos from the end of the tenancy and the initial inspection report from the start of the tenancy. Mr Toa submitted that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean.
The tenant produced video and photographic evidence and submitted that the initial property inspection report contained the tenant’s comments that some cleaning was required when the tenancy started.
The focus here is on the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The legal test is not that the tenant leaves the premises in the same condition they were provided in.
Whether premises are left reasonably clean is not decided on the subjective opinion of either party. The Tribunal, as best it can on the evidence, objectively assess whether the premises were left reasonably clean or not.
My assessment of the evidence is that the premises were generally left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. But some additional cleaning was required as is clear from the landlord’s close-up photos.
The invoice for cleaning is for 15 hours with additional claims for oven and window cleaning.
Even if the premises had been left in a poor state of cleanliness, which they were not, a claim for that amount is high.
The Tribunal relies on its experience when assessing claims such as this.
The invoice is not narrated in any detailed way. The cleaning done would probably have taken the premises to a stage where they could be re-tenanted, clean to a ‘motel’ standard.
I find that a claim for 3 hours’ cleaning is reasonable based on the evidence provided. The cleaning work beyond that was for additional cleaning which any landlord must expect to have to do between tenancies.
I award the landlord compensation for cleaning of $304.75. Has the tenant proved claims for compensation for a loss of amenity / loss of enjoyment of the tenancy? If so, what would be reasonable compensation for that loss?
The tenant has 9 claims: i.The stove top was not in a reasonable working state from the start of the tenancy. The tenant seeks $2,106.88 for the loss of amenity (2% of the weekly rent) and the cost of buying an induction cooker ($62.00). ii.The renovation of the ensuite bathroom took 3.57 weeks. The tenant seeks 20% of the rent for that period - $481.95. iii.There was a cigarette smell in the ensuite bedroom. The tenant seeks 5% of the weekly rent for 26 weeks ($877.50) and the cost of buying an air purifier ($179.00) and the cost of electricity to run it ($30) – a total of $1,076.50. iv.The garden was contaminated as detailed in a Regional Council LLUR report which was not disclosed. The tenant seeks 1.5% of the weekly rent for this loss of amenity (being unable to grow vegetables) and $300.00 for wasted garden expenditure – a total of $1,880.16. v.The shower tray was cracked, and the tenant did not use it for 5.57 weeks. The tenant seeks 10% of the weekly rent as compensation for that period – a total of $389.90. vi.The hot water cylinder malfunctioned twice, and the tenant was without hot water for 2 nights, 8 February and 13 August 2023. The tenant seeks $30.00 for this loss of amenity. vii.The bathroom sink was blocked for 1.5 weeks. The tenant seeks compensation based on 10% of the rent for that period – a total of $105.00. viii.The heated towel rail was not in a reasonable working condition throughout the tenancy. The tenant seeks compensation of $250.00. ix.The clothesline was not in a reasonable working condition and could not reasonably be used. The tenant seeks compensation of $350.00 for this loss of amenity.
In total, the tenant’s compensation claim for the loss of amenity is $6,732.39.
The Tribunal is careful when assessing claims like this where the application was made more than 3 years after the tenancy started and where some of the claims date back to the start of the tenancy. I queried the tenant about that as it seemed to me that the application might have been in retaliation for the landlord’s application for cleaning costs. The tenant assured me it was not. Nevertheless, the Tribunal needs to exercise some caution here.
The tenant could have applied for work orders for many of the issues raised during the tenancy had they been as significant as suggested. While matters were raised by email, the landlord’s response that they considered some issues resolved when there were no further communications is a reasonable one.
Also, the invoices the landlord produced in evidence establish that the landlord did not neglect its repair and maintenance responsibilities. It responded promptly to matters as they arose.
Compensation usually flows from a breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities, in this case a responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
The tenant said this was the first time they had rented in New Zealand. A simple on-line search would have alerted them to the remedies they had available if they considered the landlord to be in breach of their statutory responsibilities.
The tenant also seems to consider that everything that occurred was somehow a breach. That is not correct. A hot water cylinder can fail at any time. A clothesline might require cleaning to remove spider webs (often). An unpleasant odour in a room might require the tenant to take some action. The decision to purchase chattels that are then retained by the tenant does not impose an obligation on the landlord to reimburse the cost.
These are ordinary matters that arise in day to day living, whether the occupants of a house are the owners or tenants.
The contamination of the garden is an unusual issue. It appears from the report provided by ECan that the land on which the premises are located might have had pesticides stored or used for the period pre-1941 and pre-1955, so about 70 years or more ago. The report refers to possible contamination and mentions there should be no consumption of home grown produce.
The landlord said they were completely unaware of this. I accept that. Records such as these tend to err on the side of caution. They are informative but do not impose actual prohibitions. That there was potential contamination does not mean there was actual contamination.
That the tenants chose to rip out their vegetables once aware of this report is understandable. However, I do not find that the landlord committed any breach here. The Tribunal did not receive any evidence that the landlord was ‘on notice’ of actual contamination (if there is any) and that it failed to disclose relevant information to the tenant.
I find that the tenant has proved some loss of amenity / loss of enjoyment of the tenancy mostly related to the length of time the ensuite bathroom took to renovate. While aware of the renovation at the start of the tenancy, there was a loss of enjoyment especially as there were 5 people in the house during that time. But there were other facilities available so that must be considered too.
The landlord arranged for the stove top to be assessed and repaired. Mr Toa gave evidence that the landlord was unaware of any continuing issue after the repair was done.
The Tribunal does not generally award compensation based on a percentage of rent. In cases such as this it assesses the overall loss of amenity and will often make a global award. I consider that to be the appropriate approach in this case.
I award the tenant compensation of $800.00 for the loss of enjoyment of the tenancy due to some of the disruptions described including the length of the bathroom renovation and the fact that the shower tray cracked preventing its use for a short period – 5.57 weeks.
The tenant’s failure to follow through other matters with the landlord does not entitle the tenant to compensation since the landlord responded to repair and maintenance issues well and probably would also have responded to the matters the tenant just gave up on.
I do not find that the clothesline was unusable, nor do I find that the tenant suffered a loss of amenity due to the alleged misrepresentation about potential garden contamination. Result
The landlord’s claim for end of tenancy cleaning is allowed in the amount of $304.75 only.
The landlord will pay the tenant compensation of $800.00 for the loss of amenity / loss of enjoyment of the tenancy arising from some delayed repairs and the extended renovation of the ensuite bathroom.
After the deduction of the landlord’s successful cleaning claim from the compensation awarded to the tenant, the landlord must pay the tenant $495.25.
The bond will be paid to the tenant. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression. I order suppression of the tenant’s name. The application and the defence to the landlord’s application have been partly successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5417488 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5417488 — 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