What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455449 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 5455449?

Cleaning: $1,115.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,450.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $95.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455449?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13867314-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455449 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 5455449?

Cleaning: $1,115.20 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,450.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $95.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455449?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13867314-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5455449 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455449 — net $338.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 4 February 2026	$1,450.00	Rent arrears (to 4 February 2026
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$1,115.20	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and gardening	$95.00	Rubbish removal: and gardening
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$338.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$338.20

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] $338.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 26 February 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. [Tenant] appeared for both tenants.
The tenancy commenced on 31 July 2025 with the fixed term ending on 31 January 2026. During the fixed term the landlord advised the tenant that the tenancy would not be renewed. The tenancy ended on 4 February 2026.

How much is owed in rent arrears?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,450.00.
The tenant did not dispute the amount claimed and asked for the rent arrears to be taken from the bond.
The amount claimed is ordered.

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 seeks compensation as follows: a. Cleaning - $280.00 b. Carpet cleaning - $1,115.20; and c. Rubbish removal and gardening costs - $190.00
Invoices in the amount claimed were provided.
The landlord said prior to the commencement of the tenancy the property was refreshed with new paint and new carpet.
A pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs was provided. This shows the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish. The exterior photographs show the lawns were short, the edges had been weed sprayed and the small garden to beside the front door was free from weeds. The area next to the outdoor heat pump unit had been weed sprayed.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. An end of tenancy inspection report with photographs was produced. The Property Manager said she completed the end of tenancy inspection on 5 February 2026, in the company of her colleague [Property Manager], during which time the attached photographs were taken.
The photographs show: a. A small pink mark on the wall in the lounge along with some minor surface scuffing and marks on the walls near the light switch. b. Black marks on the door frame in the lounge near the catch for the door handle. c. Areas of scuffing on the wall in the dining room and dust on the skirting boards near the oven. d. Scuff marks, brown spill marks and dust on some of the bedroom walls. e. The kitchen extra fan was greasy. f. There was a small area of sticky dust along the bottom of the shower door. g. The carpets had multiple discrete stains. The carpet contractors invoice records there were 10 red stains and 23 coffee stains present after the initial carpet deep clean. h. The Council provided recycling and glass recycling bins contained non- recyclable material and the rubbish bin was full. i. There was a very small amount of debris on the garage floor.
The Tribunal was provided with an email from [Property Manager] which stated: “...[I] can confirm the property had undergone renovations prior to the tenants moving in. This included new carpet installation, repainting throughout the home, new curtains being installed, and a new stove being fitted. During the outgoing inspection, I observed the property to be in poor condition compared to the condition at the commencement of the tenancy. There was a strong dog odour present throughout the property, along with multiple stains visible on the carpet...”
The landlord provided the Tribunal with copies of text messages between herself and a neighbour of the tenant. In the messages the neighbour complained about dogs barking inside the property. Photographs were also provided showing dogs inside the home. The landlord said dogs were not permitted under the tenancy agreement.
[Tenant] disputed failing to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. She produced a video which she said she took at the end of the tenancy. She said this proves the property had been cleaned to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The video was of a poor quality but showed the tenant walking through the interior pointing out the condition of the windows, walls, curtains, and kitchen.
The tenant said that any issues with marks on the walls and carpet was due the landlord’s painting contractors painting all the windows shut when the property was refreshed. The tenant said that this prevented her from being able to properly ventilate the home leading to a build-up of mould and mildew.
The landlord accepted the windows were painted shut but said the tenant never raised this as an issue. The problem was discovered during a routine property inspection on 19 September 2025. It took several contractors multiple attempts to free the windows with the issue finally being remedied on 25 November 2025.
The tenant accepted having a dog in the property.
The tenant disputed leaving rubbish behind saying all rubbish was removed and dumped at her place of employment. The tenant also disputed the gardening costs saying the property did not have a garden and all areas had been mown at the end of the tenancy. Analysis and decision
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is requires is that the premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all person items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind or underneath appliances. 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.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant returned the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition with the exception of some marks on the walls, the kitchen extractor fan and the area below the shower door. The Tribunal routinely makes awards for cleaning compensation. The Tribunal considers the additional cleaning could have been completed in approximately one hours and the amount of $50.00 compensation for cleaning costs is ordered.
The Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return the carpets in a reasonably clean condition. The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence the carpets were new at the commencement of the tenancy, that a dog had been living at the property resulting in a strong pet odour and there were multiple red and brown stains. The Tribunal finds the amount claimed proved, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Tribunal finds the tenant failed to remove all rubbish from the property and failed to weed the small garden by the front step and by the heat pump outdoor unit. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant is liable to pay for the additional costs associated with weed spraying and trimming of the shrubs. This is routine maintenance which the landlord is responsible for. The amount of $95.00 is ordered for rubbish removal costs and the small amount of weeding required. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have been substantially successful and name suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5455449 — net $338.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 4 February 2026	$1,450.00	Rent arrears (to 4 February 2026
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$1,115.20	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and gardening	$95.00	Rubbish removal: and gardening
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$338.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$338.20

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] $338.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 26 February 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. [Tenant] appeared for both tenants.
The tenancy commenced on 31 July 2025 with the fixed term ending on 31 January 2026. During the fixed term the landlord advised the tenant that the tenancy would not be renewed. The tenancy ended on 4 February 2026.

How much is owed in rent arrears?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $1,450.00.
The tenant did not dispute the amount claimed and asked for the rent arrears to be taken from the bond.
The amount claimed is ordered.

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 seeks compensation as follows: a. Cleaning - $280.00 b. Carpet cleaning - $1,115.20; and c. Rubbish removal and gardening costs - $190.00
Invoices in the amount claimed were provided.
The landlord said prior to the commencement of the tenancy the property was refreshed with new paint and new carpet.
A pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs was provided. This shows the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition, free from rubbish. The exterior photographs show the lawns were short, the edges had been weed sprayed and the small garden to beside the front door was free from weeds. The area next to the outdoor heat pump unit had been weed sprayed.

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

The landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. An end of tenancy inspection report with photographs was produced. The Property Manager said she completed the end of tenancy inspection on 5 February 2026, in the company of her colleague [Property Manager], during which time the attached photographs were taken.
The photographs show: a. A small pink mark on the wall in the lounge along with some minor surface scuffing and marks on the walls near the light switch. b. Black marks on the door frame in the lounge near the catch for the door handle. c. Areas of scuffing on the wall in the dining room and dust on the skirting boards near the oven. d. Scuff marks, brown spill marks and dust on some of the bedroom walls. e. The kitchen extra fan was greasy. f. There was a small area of sticky dust along the bottom of the shower door. g. The carpets had multiple discrete stains. The carpet contractors invoice records there were 10 red stains and 23 coffee stains present after the initial carpet deep clean. h. The Council provided recycling and glass recycling bins contained non- recyclable material and the rubbish bin was full. i. There was a very small amount of debris on the garage floor.
The Tribunal was provided with an email from [Property Manager] which stated: “...[I] can confirm the property had undergone renovations prior to the tenants moving in. This included new carpet installation, repainting throughout the home, new curtains being installed, and a new stove being fitted. During the outgoing inspection, I observed the property to be in poor condition compared to the condition at the commencement of the tenancy. There was a strong dog odour present throughout the property, along with multiple stains visible on the carpet...”
The landlord provided the Tribunal with copies of text messages between herself and a neighbour of the tenant. In the messages the neighbour complained about dogs barking inside the property. Photographs were also provided showing dogs inside the home. The landlord said dogs were not permitted under the tenancy agreement.
[Tenant] disputed failing to return the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. She produced a video which she said she took at the end of the tenancy. She said this proves the property had been cleaned to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The video was of a poor quality but showed the tenant walking through the interior pointing out the condition of the windows, walls, curtains, and kitchen.
The tenant said that any issues with marks on the walls and carpet was due the landlord’s painting contractors painting all the windows shut when the property was refreshed. The tenant said that this prevented her from being able to properly ventilate the home leading to a build-up of mould and mildew.
The landlord accepted the windows were painted shut but said the tenant never raised this as an issue. The problem was discovered during a routine property inspection on 19 September 2025. It took several contractors multiple attempts to free the windows with the issue finally being remedied on 25 November 2025.
The tenant accepted having a dog in the property.
The tenant disputed leaving rubbish behind saying all rubbish was removed and dumped at her place of employment. The tenant also disputed the gardening costs saying the property did not have a garden and all areas had been mown at the end of the tenancy. Analysis and decision
The Act does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. What is requires is that the premises, including the stove and bathroom fittings, are cleaned and all person items removed. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind or underneath appliances. 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.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs presented, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The Tribunal was able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the property at the beginning and end of the tenancy. Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant returned the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition with the exception of some marks on the walls, the kitchen extractor fan and the area below the shower door. The Tribunal routinely makes awards for cleaning compensation. The Tribunal considers the additional cleaning could have been completed in approximately one hours and the amount of $50.00 compensation for cleaning costs is ordered.
The Tribunal is satisfied the tenant failed to return the carpets in a reasonably clean condition. The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence the carpets were new at the commencement of the tenancy, that a dog had been living at the property resulting in a strong pet odour and there were multiple red and brown stains. The Tribunal finds the amount claimed proved, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Tribunal finds the tenant failed to remove all rubbish from the property and failed to weed the small garden by the front step and by the heat pump outdoor unit. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied the tenant is liable to pay for the additional costs associated with weed spraying and trimming of the shrubs. This is routine maintenance which the landlord is responsible for. The amount of $95.00 is ordered for rubbish removal costs and the small amount of weeding required. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have been substantially successful and name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455449 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455449 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed in rent arrears?

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed in rent arrears?

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

Did the tenant leave the property reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions