What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421281 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 5421281?

Cleaning: $1,264.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421281?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13586588-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421281 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 5421281?

Cleaning: $1,264.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421281?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421281?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13586588-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421281 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421281 — net $1,292.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Pool cleaning	$1,264.50	Pool cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,292.50
Bond	$5,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,292.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Glenfield Limited As Agent For Yuen Mon Kei $1,292.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Glenfield Limited As Agent For Yuen Mon Kei: $1,292.50 [The tenant/s]: $4,027.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 May 2026.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Should the tenant pay the landlord $540.00 to fill the water tanks with potable water at the end of the tenancy? The law
Section 39 RTA relevantly states: 39Responsibility for outgoings ... (3)The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. (4)Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises: (a)electricity and gas: (b)telephone and Internet (c) supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
Clause 1 under the heading “Tenant’s Maintenance Duties and Costs” of the tenancy agreement states: The tenant agrees to:
Pay all charges for electricity, gas, telephone and metered water and wastewater. If the property has a water tank, the Tenant agrees to pay for refilling or topping up of the tank as required for their use during the tenancy. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the water tanks were full at the beginning of the tenancy and not full at the end. The landlord organised for $540.00 worth of potable water to be delivered to the premises to fill the water tanks before a new tenancy began.
The tenant claims the water tanks were full at the end of the tenancy and any drainage is the result of a leak at the premises. Analysis
Section 39 RTA states that a tenant only has to pay for water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. In this case, both parties gave evidence that the water tanks are usually filled by rainwater. This is not a case where the supplier of water charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
The tenancy agreement requires the tenant to pay for the refilling or topping up of the water tank as required during the tenancy however, it does not require the tenant to fill the water tanks at the end of the tenancy.
The entry inspection report does not have any notes about whether the water tanks were filled with water at the beginning of the tenancy. Therefore, I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that this is the case.
For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $540.00 to fill the water tanks at the end of the tenancy is dismissed.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The law

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities." 2
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7 Lawns and garden
The landlord submitted an invoice for $460.00 for garden maintenance. The invoice lists the following services as having been provided: a. Lawnmowing and weeding: $360.00 b. Flax, fallen palm leaves handling: $100
The tenancy agreement states that the land area outside of the fence is not included with the tenancy. Despite this, the landlord appears to have tried to charge the tenant for mowing this area of lawn at the end of the tenancy. This is not the tenant’s responsibility.
The photographs in the exit inspection report dated 1 December 2025, show the lawns and garden within the fenced area to be in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The lawns have been mowed and the garden is not overgrown.
The landlord has submitted other close up photographs, which show over gown grass and weeds however, it is not clear where in the premises these photographs were taken or when. For this reason, I prefer the photographs contained in the exit inspection report and find that these provide the most accurate record of the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not proven that the tenant left the lawns and garden in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for $460.00 to mow the lawns and tidy the garden is dismissed. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Pool
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the pool to be in good condition with sparkling clean water. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end show the water to be quite murky.
The tenancy agreement states that the tenant is responsible for the pool. The tenant claims the landlord did not provide them with a pool vacuum however, there is no legal requirement for the landlord to do this. Just as the lawns are the tenant’s responsibility and the landlord does not need to provide the tenant with a lawnmower, so too, the pool is the tenant’s responsibility, and the landlord does not need to provide them with a pool vacuum.
Because the water in the pool was very murky at the end of the tenancy, I find it was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $1,264.50 to clean the pool is granted. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred to the cat door during the tenancy? The law
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. 8
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 9 Analysis
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the cat door is intact. The photographs taken at the end show the flap on the cat door is missing. Whilst I am convinced that the flap on the cat door was damaged during the tenancy, the tenant gave evidence that the damage occurred as a result of a storm. The tenant claims a strong gust of wind blew the flap off. The landlord did not submit any evidence to rebut this. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B. 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629,
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the tenant did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage to the cat door. It appears to have been an accident. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $224.25 to replace the cat door is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression at the hearing however, the tenant did. I have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The tenant is concerned that publication of their name will tarnish their reputation and negatively affect their ability to secure a private rental in the future. The tenant describes themselves as a low-income family with young children. I accept that these factors alone are likely to make it more difficult for the tenant to secure a private rental in the future, and publication of the tenant’s name will most likely increase this. The tenant has always paid their rent on time and appears to have been a good tenant. The fact that they left the pool in an unreasonably clean state is a minor infraction. In these circumstances, the public interest in prospective landlord’s knowing about the circumstances of this tenancy and the tenant’s name are low. I find the tenant’s interests in suppression outweighs the public’s interest in publication. For this reason, the tenant’s request for name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421281 — net $1,292.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Pool cleaning	$1,264.50	Pool cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,292.50
Bond	$5,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,292.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Glenfield Limited As Agent For Yuen Mon Kei $1,292.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Glenfield Limited As Agent For Yuen Mon Kei: $1,292.50 [The tenant/s]: $4,027.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 May 2026.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Should the tenant pay the landlord $540.00 to fill the water tanks with potable water at the end of the tenancy? The law
Section 39 RTA relevantly states: 39Responsibility for outgoings ... (3)The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities. (4)Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises: (a)electricity and gas: (b)telephone and Internet (c) supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
Clause 1 under the heading “Tenant’s Maintenance Duties and Costs” of the tenancy agreement states: The tenant agrees to:
Pay all charges for electricity, gas, telephone and metered water and wastewater. If the property has a water tank, the Tenant agrees to pay for refilling or topping up of the tank as required for their use during the tenancy. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the water tanks were full at the beginning of the tenancy and not full at the end. The landlord organised for $540.00 worth of potable water to be delivered to the premises to fill the water tanks before a new tenancy began.
The tenant claims the water tanks were full at the end of the tenancy and any drainage is the result of a leak at the premises. Analysis
Section 39 RTA states that a tenant only has to pay for water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. In this case, both parties gave evidence that the water tanks are usually filled by rainwater. This is not a case where the supplier of water charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
The tenancy agreement requires the tenant to pay for the refilling or topping up of the water tank as required during the tenancy however, it does not require the tenant to fill the water tanks at the end of the tenancy.
The entry inspection report does not have any notes about whether the water tanks were filled with water at the beginning of the tenancy. Therefore, I am also not convinced on the balance of probabilities that this is the case.
For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $540.00 to fill the water tanks at the end of the tenancy is dismissed.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The law

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 1
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities." 2
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 3 It does not mean commercially clean, 4 spotless 5 or to a hotel or motel standard. 6 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 7 Lawns and garden
The landlord submitted an invoice for $460.00 for garden maintenance. The invoice lists the following services as having been provided: a. Lawnmowing and weeding: $360.00 b. Flax, fallen palm leaves handling: $100
The tenancy agreement states that the land area outside of the fence is not included with the tenancy. Despite this, the landlord appears to have tried to charge the tenant for mowing this area of lawn at the end of the tenancy. This is not the tenant’s responsibility.
The photographs in the exit inspection report dated 1 December 2025, show the lawns and garden within the fenced area to be in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The lawns have been mowed and the garden is not overgrown.
The landlord has submitted other close up photographs, which show over gown grass and weeds however, it is not clear where in the premises these photographs were taken or when. For this reason, I prefer the photographs contained in the exit inspection report and find that these provide the most accurate record of the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not proven that the tenant left the lawns and garden in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for $460.00 to mow the lawns and tidy the garden is dismissed. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. 3 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 5 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 7 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. Pool
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the pool to be in good condition with sparkling clean water. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end show the water to be quite murky.
The tenancy agreement states that the tenant is responsible for the pool. The tenant claims the landlord did not provide them with a pool vacuum however, there is no legal requirement for the landlord to do this. Just as the lawns are the tenant’s responsibility and the landlord does not need to provide the tenant with a lawnmower, so too, the pool is the tenant’s responsibility, and the landlord does not need to provide them with a pool vacuum.
Because the water in the pool was very murky at the end of the tenancy, I find it was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $1,264.50 to clean the pool is granted. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount. Is the tenant responsible for damage that occurred to the cat door during the tenancy? The law
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. 8
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 9 Analysis
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show the cat door is intact. The photographs taken at the end show the flap on the cat door is missing. Whilst I am convinced that the flap on the cat door was damaged during the tenancy, the tenant gave evidence that the damage occurred as a result of a storm. The tenant claims a strong gust of wind blew the flap off. The landlord did not submit any evidence to rebut this. 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B. 9 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629,
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the tenant did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage to the cat door. It appears to have been an accident. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $224.25 to replace the cat door is dismissed. Filing fee & name suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression at the hearing however, the tenant did. I have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The tenant is concerned that publication of their name will tarnish their reputation and negatively affect their ability to secure a private rental in the future. The tenant describes themselves as a low-income family with young children. I accept that these factors alone are likely to make it more difficult for the tenant to secure a private rental in the future, and publication of the tenant’s name will most likely increase this. The tenant has always paid their rent on time and appears to have been a good tenant. The fact that they left the pool in an unreasonably clean state is a minor infraction. In these circumstances, the public interest in prospective landlord’s knowing about the circumstances of this tenancy and the tenant’s name are low. I find the tenant’s interests in suppression outweighs the public’s interest in publication. For this reason, the tenant’s request for name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421281 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421281 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions