What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457496 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 5457496?

Cleaning: $284.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457496?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457496?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13849374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457496 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 5457496?

Cleaning: $284.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457496?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457496?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13849374-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

87 Russell Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5457496 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457496 — net $284.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$284.63	7. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Net award	$284.63
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$284.63

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 Dunedin City Property Management Limited $284.63 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Dunedin City Property Management Limited: $284.63 [The tenant/s]: $2,315.37

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 9 December 2024 and ended on 8 December 2025. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The Tribunal is not required to ascertain the truth of the matter, but whether it is satisfied that the allegation is more likely than not.
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.”

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photos of the condition of the premises and an invoice for cleaning ($284.63). The cleaning included cleaning marks on the wall in a bedroom, rehang curtains, shower door, windowsill, laundry tub and vanity. The amount claimed is proven and is reasonable.
The landlord applied for compensation for carpet cleaning. No photos were provided in evidence to show if cleaning was required. The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence.

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.
The landlord seeks compensation for repairs in the sum of $1,728.57.The damage relates to a kitchen bench, door and wall repairs. Insufficient evidence has been provided by the landlord to support the claim. There are no photos of the bench or door. The photos of the walls are not clear and the landlord has claimed for cleaning of the marks separately. The claims are dismissed.
As the landlord has not been wholly successful in this hearing I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in the hearing. The landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457496 — net $284.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$284.63	7. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Net award	$284.63
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$284.63

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 Dunedin City Property Management Limited $284.63 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Dunedin City Property Management Limited: $284.63 [The tenant/s]: $2,315.37

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 9 December 2024 and ended on 8 December 2025. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The Tribunal is not required to ascertain the truth of the matter, but whether it is satisfied that the allegation is more likely than not.
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.”

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photos of the condition of the premises and an invoice for cleaning ($284.63). The cleaning included cleaning marks on the wall in a bedroom, rehang curtains, shower door, windowsill, laundry tub and vanity. The amount claimed is proven and is reasonable.
The landlord applied for compensation for carpet cleaning. No photos were provided in evidence to show if cleaning was required. The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence.

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.
The landlord seeks compensation for repairs in the sum of $1,728.57.The damage relates to a kitchen bench, door and wall repairs. Insufficient evidence has been provided by the landlord to support the claim. There are no photos of the bench or door. The photos of the walls are not clear and the landlord has claimed for cleaning of the marks separately. The claims are dismissed.
As the landlord has not been wholly successful in this hearing I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in the hearing. The landlord’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457496 — Cleanliness at 87 Russell Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457496 — Cleanliness at 87 Russell Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions