What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5446711 about?

The tribunal order states: Upali Hikkaduwa Liyanage to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5446711?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5446711?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5446711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13765834-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5446711 about?

The tribunal order states: Upali Hikkaduwa Liyanage to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5446711?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5446711?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5446711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13765834-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 8 Ballin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5446711 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5446711 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	eaning and carpet cleaning. They have been successful in obtaining an order for $100.00 for cleaning.
Net award	$100.00
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

Upali Hikkaduwa Liyanage to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Aiqing Guan $100.00 immediately from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (BN-17054951) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Aiqing Guan: $100.00 Upali Hikkaduwa Liyanage: $2,540.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 July 2026. Ling Gao and Jack Grace appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord seeks an order for compensation of $690.00 for cleaning and $497.00 for carpet cleaning.
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.
A lot of evidence was given at the hearing. This decision will only discuss the relevant parts. 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 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]. 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 Analysis
The landlord submitted a copy of the exit inspection report with photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These show the premises were mostly left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, with a few small exceptions. For example, the light switch in the storage room was quite greasy. A cupboard underneath a sink in the storage room also had a small piece of tissue paper in it and had not been wiped clean. In the kitchen, the skirting underneath the oven was a little bit greasy and there was a small amount of debris on the kitchen floor, as well as in the lounge. With the exception of these areas, I find the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $690.00 for cleaning. The landlord claims a deep clean was required to get the premises ready for a new tenant. Landlords often like to ensure that premises are presented in a pristine condition for new tenants, because this ensures the new tenancy starts off on a good footing. That is understandable however, it is not the responsibility of the outgoing tenant to leave the premises immaculate. If a landlord wants the premises to be pristine for a new tenant, this is a cost of business that they must bear themselves. Tenant’s only need to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. With the exception of the areas noted above, I find the tenant in this case met their responsibilities.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for $100.00 to address the areas identified above.

Is the tenant responsible for stains to the carpet 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. 7 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, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
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. 8 Analysis
The entry inspection photographs clearly show the carpet was already stained in a number of areas throughout the premises. There was a large brown stain in the lounge, as well as small white paint spots. The carpet in the hallway also had white paint spots on it, as well as some darker marks. The carpet on the stairs had some dark marks on it. The carpet in bedroom 1 had small, white paint spots on it. The notes on the entry inspection report state there were “existing marks” on the flooring in the hallway, lounge, all three bedrooms, powder room and bathroom 2. For these reasons, I am not convinced that any staining to the carpet occurred during the tenancy. I find it more likely that it was pre-existing.
The landlord’s claim for $497.00 for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord sought $1,182.00 in compensation for cleaning and carpet cleaning. They have been successful in obtaining an order for $100.00 for cleaning. I do not consider the landlord has been substantially successful with their claim and for this reason, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5446711 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$100.00	eaning and carpet cleaning. They have been successful in obtaining an order for $100.00 for cleaning.
Net award	$100.00
Bond	$2,640.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

Upali Hikkaduwa Liyanage to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Aiqing Guan $100.00 immediately from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (BN-17054951) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Aiqing Guan: $100.00 Upali Hikkaduwa Liyanage: $2,540.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 July 2026. Ling Gao and Jack Grace appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord seeks an order for compensation of $690.00 for cleaning and $497.00 for carpet cleaning.
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.
A lot of evidence was given at the hearing. This decision will only discuss the relevant parts. 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 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]. 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 Analysis
The landlord submitted a copy of the exit inspection report with photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These show the premises were mostly left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, with a few small exceptions. For example, the light switch in the storage room was quite greasy. A cupboard underneath a sink in the storage room also had a small piece of tissue paper in it and had not been wiped clean. In the kitchen, the skirting underneath the oven was a little bit greasy and there was a small amount of debris on the kitchen floor, as well as in the lounge. With the exception of these areas, I find the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $690.00 for cleaning. The landlord claims a deep clean was required to get the premises ready for a new tenant. Landlords often like to ensure that premises are presented in a pristine condition for new tenants, because this ensures the new tenancy starts off on a good footing. That is understandable however, it is not the responsibility of the outgoing tenant to leave the premises immaculate. If a landlord wants the premises to be pristine for a new tenant, this is a cost of business that they must bear themselves. Tenant’s only need to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. With the exception of the areas noted above, I find the tenant in this case met their responsibilities.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is granted for $100.00 to address the areas identified above.

Is the tenant responsible for stains to the carpet 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. 7 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, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
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. 8 Analysis
The entry inspection photographs clearly show the carpet was already stained in a number of areas throughout the premises. There was a large brown stain in the lounge, as well as small white paint spots. The carpet in the hallway also had white paint spots on it, as well as some darker marks. The carpet on the stairs had some dark marks on it. The carpet in bedroom 1 had small, white paint spots on it. The notes on the entry inspection report state there were “existing marks” on the flooring in the hallway, lounge, all three bedrooms, powder room and bathroom 2. For these reasons, I am not convinced that any staining to the carpet occurred during the tenancy. I find it more likely that it was pre-existing.
The landlord’s claim for $497.00 for carpet cleaning is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord sought $1,182.00 in compensation for cleaning and carpet cleaning. They have been successful in obtaining an order for $100.00 for cleaning. I do not consider the landlord has been substantially successful with their claim and for this reason, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5446711 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 8 Ballin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5446711 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 8 Ballin Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for stains to the carpet during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for stains to the carpet during the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions