What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426632 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 5426632?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $74.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426632?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426632?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13307337-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426632 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 5426632?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $74.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426632?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426632?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13307337-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426632 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426632 — net $189.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$74.75	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$115.00	Cleaning
Net award	$189.75
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$189.75

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5426632 — net $189.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$74.75	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$115.00	Cleaning
Net award	$189.75
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$189.75

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] are to pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited $189.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Grenadier Rent Shop Limited: $189.75 [The tenant/s]: $1,890.25

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant’s representative], representing both tenants, and Mr Toa and Ms Freeman, representing the landlord, all attended the video conference hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The parties agreed the tenancy ended on 25 October 2025. Burden of proof and evidence
Any party making a claim must prove their claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.”
When the parties’ evidence differs, each party must provide additional supporting evidence of their position.
All the evidence provided by the parties has been considered. However, not all the evidence is referred to here, only that which is directly relevant to the determination of the claims.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord said that, whilst the tenant left most of the property reasonably clean and tidy, there were some areas that the tenant did not clean, or items they did not remove at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the tenant did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord claimed $74.75 for removing a mattress and some other small items left on the street outside the property by the tenant. The tenant agreed to pay $74.75 to remove these items at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord said the tenant left a dirty kitchen cupboard, a cooktop that was not fully cleaned, some red stickers and a couple of door hooks, window tints and some plastic covering across the kitchen splashback, as well as the back of the blind in the bedroom, which had a dead insect on it. The landlord provided a set of photographs for their cleaning claim, which they said were taken on 29 October 2025, 4 days after the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning in the amount of $201.25 for 3.5 hours of cleaning @ $50.00/hour plus GST. There was no narrative on the cleaning invoice of the cleaning work completed.
The landlord did not provide a full Final Inspection Report, just photographs focused on the claims made, and also did not provide any Entry Inspection Report.
The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is not required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, behind appliances or the outside of the house. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this “extra” level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.
The tenant said they left the property reasonably clean and tidy and the cleaning matters raised by the landlord were ‘superficial’. The tenant said the plastic covering over the splashback was non-adhesive and could have been removed in seconds. The tenant admitted they left 2 door hooks, 2 stickers, a window tint and the plastic covering over the splashback but said they had to leave the property quickly and it was a minor oversight. The tenant was willing to contribute $50.00 towards cleaning costs.
The tenant provided a significant number of photographs, mainly taken by the landlord and obtained by the tenant before the hearing, tabled, as well as a significant number of other documents and a lengthy statement of evidence with submissions.
The tenant took issue with the landlord’s approach with the final inspection, saying the entry inspection was done with a telescope and the final inspection was done with a microscope. The tenant raised issues about the landlord’s photographs at the time of entry, when the photographs were presented in a different format side by side, as opposed to the landlord’s final inspection photographs, which were more global in nature and were presented differently, which the tenant said made it highly difficult to compare like-for-like with areas where the landlord claimed there were issues at the end of the tenancy. The tenant also indicated the lighting used by the landlord affected the quality of what could be seen in the different photographs.
The tenant also provided detailed submissions in their statement about the quality of the landlord’s photographs, as well as their method and approach in inspecting the property at the start and end of the tenancy. The tenant said the photographs the landlord provided for the Tribunal for their claims were enlarged close-up photographs, which did not provide any context for where the photographs were taken in the property, or provide any context for how end of the tenancy close-up photographs could be compared with more distantly-taken photographs at the start of the tenancy. The tenant also said some photographs provided by the landlord for their cleaning claim did not have any equivalent ‘before’ photograph in the entry inspection photographs, which the tenant had obtained from the landlord.
The tenant said the dirt in the kitchen cupboard shown in the landlord’s photographs was ‘superficial’, and said the door hooks, stickers and plastic covering and window tint could have been easily removed and the kitchen cupboard would only have required a quick wipe.
The landlord said the cleaner spent most of the time at the property trying to remove the tints and stickers and said that if the tenant had done this themselves, they would have understood these items were not easily removed.
The tenant said the landlord had not proved the time required to remove the tints and stickers and plastic covering.
The landlord’s photographs taken on 29 October 2025 show some small items left by the tenant at the property, which included a toilet roll, hair tie, 2 stickers, 2 door hooks, a large plastic covering and window tint. The photographs also show a dirty kitchen cupboard. The tenant admitted they had left these items but minimised the dirt in the kitchen cupboard saying it was only superficial. The tenant disputed cleaning the bedroom blind and pointed to photographs of the cooktop before and at the end of the tenancy, which showed the cooktop in a similar condition, namely somewhat worn and not pristine.
From the evidence provided, based mainly on the tenant acknowledging some items left at the property when they left quickly, agreeing that the stickers, door knobs, plastic covering and window tint would have had to be removed, though the tenant said this would have been easily done, disputed by the landlord, and that the tenant acknowledged there was some dirt in the kitchen cupboard, I find the landlord likely had to incur cleaning costs to clear away the items the tenant left, which included those outlined above, as well as likely had to clean the kitchen cupboard and remove the door hooks, stickers, plastic covering and window tint. I do not consider any cleaning time for the cooktop or the bedroom blind, as I find the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove these items were any different at the end of the tenancy from the start of the tenancy.
Based on an assessment of the evidence provided, I find a reasonable time to clean what was required and to clear away and remove the other items and stickers, door hooks, plastic covering and window tint, as outlined above, to be 2 hours @ $50.00/hour = $100.00 plus GST, coming to $115.00. Therefore, I award the landlord $115.00 for cleaning costs at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Repairing walls
The landlord said the tenant did some patching up on walls throughout the property during the tenancy, which made the walls look worse. The landlord said these patches had to be repaired by a professional. The landlord provided a series of close-up photographs of a number of patches on walls, as well as an invoice for repairing the plastering, patching and painting in the amount of $860.00, which the landlord claimed.
The landlord went through their photographs in detail, itemising each room which attached to each photograph. The landlord said there were around 10 patches done in the lounge, around 3 patches on the stairwell, some patches at the top of the stairs, 10 patches in the master bedroom, about 3 patches in the entrance way/kitchen and about 5 patches on the second stairwell. They said one patch was over a metre in size.
The landlord did not provide an Entry Inspection Report with photographs, nor did the landlord provide any similar photographs of the areas they claimed were patched by the tenant that showed that area at the start of the tenancy. This is key where the tenant disputes the claim, as it is the landlord’s onus to prove any damage was likely caused during the tenancy.
The tenant said most of the landlord’s images were close-ups and were out of context, making it difficult for anyone to identify the locations, and that, as such, it was impossible to compare the areas with any like-for-like photographs. The tenant said further that many of the areas reflected fair wear and tear in busy, high traffic areas, such as the lounge, and said they had done some minor maintenance of the property, by way of touch-ups.
The tenant pointed to their statement and submissions which showed two photographs of the stairwell, one at the start of the tenancy, along with a routine inspection photograph of the same area taken on 10 September 2025, only weeks before they left the property, neither of which showed any damage on the stairwell walls. I note both photographs were taken at some distance.
The tenant also highlighted an entry inspection photograph they had put alongside a similar photograph taken at the time they left the tenancy, and then compared that with one of the landlord’s close-up photographs of the same area, all of which showed a distinctive 8-shaped figure of plaster on the wall. The tenant said this showed that the landlord was presenting areas as newly damaged by the tenants when these issues had been there at the start of the tenancy. I accept this evidence as presented by the tenant.
As the landlord has not provided any Entry Inspection Report with photographs, nor have they provided like-for-like photographs of the entry condition of the areas they are claiming the tenant plastered during the tenancy, and given the tenant’s evidence that showed some issues with the landlord’s claims for plastering areas which may have been there at the start of the tenancy, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove the tenant likely caused this damage during the tenancy. As such, I dismiss this claim. Filing fee
As both parties have had some success with their claims, I do not reimburse the filing fee to either party. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Grenadier Rent Shop Limited: $189.75 [The tenant/s]: $1,890.25 Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenants requested name suppression.
As the tenants have been substantially successful with their claim, I grant them name suppression. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426632 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426632 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions