What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426478 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 5426478?

Rent Arrears: $5,520.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,069.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426478?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426478?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13895407-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426478 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 5426478?

Rent Arrears: $5,520.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,069.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426478?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426478?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13895407-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426478 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426478 — net $3,507.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Rent arrears to 7 February 2026	$5,520.00	By consent: Rent arrears to 7 February 2026
Carpet Cleaning	$1,069.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,507.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,507.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,507.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 July 2026.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, which is granted by consent. This decision only discusses the contentious issues, which are carpet cleaning, cleaning and the lawns.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Is clause 41 of the tenancy agreement enforceable?

The tenancy agreement permits the tenant to keep two pets, namely a spoodle dog and a cat.
Clause 41 of the tenancy agreement states: Professional Cleaning of Carpets – The tenant agrees to have the carpets professionally cleaned and flea treated upon vacate of their tenancy due to the fact the landlord has given special authority to have pets at the premises.
The landlord claims the tenant did not have the carpet professionally cleaned and treated for fleas at the end of the tenancy. They submitted photographs of the carpet, which show pet hair is present.
The tenant claims that the requirement to have the carpets professionally cleaned was never explained to them. Further, the tenant claims that their dog does not shed hair. Analysis
The tenant has signed the tenancy agreement and as a result, is deemed to have read, understood and accepted its contents. The tenant is bound by clause 41, which requires them to have the carpets professionally cleaned and treated for fleas at the end of the tenancy. This is a reasonable condition that the landlord has placed upon their consent for allowing the tenant to have a pet. It is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA. Section 42G(2)(c) lists, as an example of a reasonable condition, one which requires the carpets to be cleaned to a professional standard at the end of the tenancy.
For all of these reasons, clause 41 of the tenancy agreement is enforceable. The landlord’s claim for compensation of $1,069.50 for carpet cleaning and flea treatment is granted. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy? The law
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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6
The term “premises” incudes “any land and appurtenances other than facilities.” 7 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, because there were cobwebs on some windows and dead insects on some windowsills. They also claim that the bathroom cupboard and oven were dirty. Further, they claim that the lawns were overgrown. The landlord submitted photographs taken on 10 February 2026.
The tenant claims that they vacated the premises in December 2025 and returned in mid-January 2026 to complete cleaning and mow the lawns. The tenant claims the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the beginning of the tenancy and that they left them in a better condition than at the beginning of the tenancy. Further, the tenant claims they had the lawns professionally mowed for $400.00. The tenant submitted their own photographs taken in mid-January 2026. General cleaning
The landlord accepts that the premises were not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy. From text 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. messages submitted, it is clear that this issue was settled between the parties at the beginning of the tenancy, with the tenant agreeing to receive a $250.00 rent credit.
The fact that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition does not negate the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The photographs submitted by the tenant were taken in mid-January 2026. The premises appear reasonably clean and tidy in these photographs. There is no rubbish or belongings present. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped, and bench surfaces wiped down.
From the photographs submitted by the landlord, it appears that cobwebs and insects have accrued between mid-January 2026 – 7 February 2026. The tenant left the premises before the expiry of the fixed-term however, their obligation to leave the premises reasonable clean and tidy runs up to and including the end of the fixed term, which is 7 February 2026. I find the tenant left the premises mostly reasonably clean and tidy on this date, with the exception of a couple of cobwebs, dead insects and the oven having some grease on it.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $244.38 for cleaning. Their claim for compensation is granted for $100.00, which fairly reflects the extent of the work required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Lawns
The tenant submitted photographs of the lawns taken in mid-January 2026. The lawns appear freshly cut and very tidy.
The tenant left the premises before the expiry of the fixed-term however, their obligation to leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy runs up to and including the end of the fixed-term, which is 7 February 2026. Although the tenant left the lawns reasonably clean and tidy upon their departure, it is clear from the landlord’s photographs taken on 10 February 2026, that the lawns were overgrown by the end of the tenancy and needed to be cut again
For these reasons, I find the tenant did not leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for compensation of $150.00 to mow the lawns is granted in full. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount. Filing fee & name suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee and grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.
The tenant seeks name suppression. I have a discretion to grant them name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public.
The tenant works in the health sector and is concerned that publication of their name might attract media attention because of their occupation. I accept this is likely to be the case. On the other hand, the tenant owes quite a high amount in rent arrears. There is a public interest in prospective landlord’s knowing the rent history of the tenant.
I have considered the interests of the public and tenant and find the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public’s interest in publication in this case.
The tenant’s request for name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426478 — net $3,507.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Rent arrears to 7 February 2026	$5,520.00	By consent: Rent arrears to 7 February 2026
Carpet Cleaning	$1,069.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$150.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,507.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,507.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,507.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 July 2026.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, which is granted by consent. This decision only discusses the contentious issues, which are carpet cleaning, cleaning and the lawns.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Is clause 41 of the tenancy agreement enforceable?

The tenancy agreement permits the tenant to keep two pets, namely a spoodle dog and a cat.
Clause 41 of the tenancy agreement states: Professional Cleaning of Carpets – The tenant agrees to have the carpets professionally cleaned and flea treated upon vacate of their tenancy due to the fact the landlord has given special authority to have pets at the premises.
The landlord claims the tenant did not have the carpet professionally cleaned and treated for fleas at the end of the tenancy. They submitted photographs of the carpet, which show pet hair is present.
The tenant claims that the requirement to have the carpets professionally cleaned was never explained to them. Further, the tenant claims that their dog does not shed hair. Analysis
The tenant has signed the tenancy agreement and as a result, is deemed to have read, understood and accepted its contents. The tenant is bound by clause 41, which requires them to have the carpets professionally cleaned and treated for fleas at the end of the tenancy. This is a reasonable condition that the landlord has placed upon their consent for allowing the tenant to have a pet. It is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA. Section 42G(2)(c) lists, as an example of a reasonable condition, one which requires the carpets to be cleaned to a professional standard at the end of the tenancy.
For all of these reasons, clause 41 of the tenancy agreement is enforceable. The landlord’s claim for compensation of $1,069.50 for carpet cleaning and flea treatment is granted. Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy? The law
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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6
The term “premises” incudes “any land and appurtenances other than facilities.” 7 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, because there were cobwebs on some windows and dead insects on some windowsills. They also claim that the bathroom cupboard and oven were dirty. Further, they claim that the lawns were overgrown. The landlord submitted photographs taken on 10 February 2026.
The tenant claims that they vacated the premises in December 2025 and returned in mid-January 2026 to complete cleaning and mow the lawns. The tenant claims the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the beginning of the tenancy and that they left them in a better condition than at the beginning of the tenancy. Further, the tenant claims they had the lawns professionally mowed for $400.00. The tenant submitted their own photographs taken in mid-January 2026. General cleaning
The landlord accepts that the premises were not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the beginning of the tenancy. From text 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. messages submitted, it is clear that this issue was settled between the parties at the beginning of the tenancy, with the tenant agreeing to receive a $250.00 rent credit.
The fact that the premises were not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition does not negate the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The photographs submitted by the tenant were taken in mid-January 2026. The premises appear reasonably clean and tidy in these photographs. There is no rubbish or belongings present. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped, and bench surfaces wiped down.
From the photographs submitted by the landlord, it appears that cobwebs and insects have accrued between mid-January 2026 – 7 February 2026. The tenant left the premises before the expiry of the fixed-term however, their obligation to leave the premises reasonable clean and tidy runs up to and including the end of the fixed term, which is 7 February 2026. I find the tenant left the premises mostly reasonably clean and tidy on this date, with the exception of a couple of cobwebs, dead insects and the oven having some grease on it.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $244.38 for cleaning. Their claim for compensation is granted for $100.00, which fairly reflects the extent of the work required to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Lawns
The tenant submitted photographs of the lawns taken in mid-January 2026. The lawns appear freshly cut and very tidy.
The tenant left the premises before the expiry of the fixed-term however, their obligation to leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy runs up to and including the end of the fixed-term, which is 7 February 2026. Although the tenant left the lawns reasonably clean and tidy upon their departure, it is clear from the landlord’s photographs taken on 10 February 2026, that the lawns were overgrown by the end of the tenancy and needed to be cut again
For these reasons, I find the tenant did not leave the lawns reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim for compensation of $150.00 to mow the lawns is granted in full. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount. Filing fee & name suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee and grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.
The tenant seeks name suppression. I have a discretion to grant them name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public.
The tenant works in the health sector and is concerned that publication of their name might attract media attention because of their occupation. I accept this is likely to be the case. On the other hand, the tenant owes quite a high amount in rent arrears. There is a public interest in prospective landlord’s knowing the rent history of the tenant.
I have considered the interests of the public and tenant and find the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public’s interest in publication in this case.
The tenant’s request for name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426478 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426478 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is clause 41 of the tenancy agreement enforceable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is clause 41 of the tenancy agreement enforceable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions