What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5460255 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 5460255?

Water Rates: $498.93 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5460255?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5460255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13873775-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5460255 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 5460255?

Water Rates: $498.93 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5460255?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5460255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13873775-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5460255 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5460255 — net $526.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Water rates (23/12/25 – 06/02/26	$498.93	By consent: Water rates (23/12/25 – 06/02/26
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$526.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$526.93

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] $526.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 July 2026.
The landlord has applied for outstanding water rates invoices and compensation for cleaning following the end of the tenancy. The landlord withdrew their claim for repairs to a hole in the wall.
The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates invoices, which is granted by consent. This decision only discusses the contentious issue, which is the landlord’s claim for $115.00 to clean mould from the bathroom ceiling. The sole issue I must determine is whether the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The law

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 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 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because there was mould on the ceiling in the bathroom. The landlord claims there was no mould at the beginning of the tenancy. They submitted photographs of the ceiling taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims they left the premises in a cleaner condition than when they received it. They claim the bathroom had an issue with recurring mould, which they frequently cleaned during the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The premises appear to be very clean and tidy. No rubbish or personal belongings have been left behind. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped. Bench surfaces have been wiped down. The kitchen and bathroom have been cleaned. Overall, the premises appear to be in a very good condition. There is a small amount of mould on the ceiling in the bathroom however, this is minor and does not render the premises unreasonably clean and tidy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 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].
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for $115.00 to clean the ceiling in the bathroom is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.
The tenant requested name suppression as well. I have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
Publication of the tenant’s name in this decision is likely to prejudice their ability to secure private rental accommodation in the future. This is because prospective landlords might be deterred from taking on a tenant who does not pay their water rates invoices on time. There is a public interest in prospective landlords knowing this information. On the other hand, I consider the breach to be moderate, as the amount in unpaid water rates invoices is modest. The tenant is a single mother to 5 children aged 2 – 18 years. These factors alone are likely to make it difficult for the tenant to find private rental accommodation. I accept that publication of the tenant’s name in this decision will exacerbate this difficulty.
Considering the relatively low nature and extent of the breach, I find the tenant’s interests in suppression outweigh the public’s interest in publication. For this reason, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5460255 — net $526.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Water rates (23/12/25 – 06/02/26	$498.93	By consent: Water rates (23/12/25 – 06/02/26
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$526.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$526.93

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] $526.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 July 2026.
The landlord has applied for outstanding water rates invoices and compensation for cleaning following the end of the tenancy. The landlord withdrew their claim for repairs to a hole in the wall.
The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates invoices, which is granted by consent. This decision only discusses the contentious issue, which is the landlord’s claim for $115.00 to clean mould from the bathroom ceiling. The sole issue I must determine is whether the tenant left the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

The law

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 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 Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, because there was mould on the ceiling in the bathroom. The landlord claims there was no mould at the beginning of the tenancy. They submitted photographs of the ceiling taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
The tenant claims they left the premises in a cleaner condition than when they received it. They claim the bathroom had an issue with recurring mould, which they frequently cleaned during the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The premises appear to be very clean and tidy. No rubbish or personal belongings have been left behind. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped. Bench surfaces have been wiped down. The kitchen and bathroom have been cleaned. Overall, the premises appear to be in a very good condition. There is a small amount of mould on the ceiling in the bathroom however, this is minor and does not render the premises unreasonably clean and tidy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 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].
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for $115.00 to clean the ceiling in the bathroom is dismissed. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.
The tenant requested name suppression as well. I have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
Publication of the tenant’s name in this decision is likely to prejudice their ability to secure private rental accommodation in the future. This is because prospective landlords might be deterred from taking on a tenant who does not pay their water rates invoices on time. There is a public interest in prospective landlords knowing this information. On the other hand, I consider the breach to be moderate, as the amount in unpaid water rates invoices is modest. The tenant is a single mother to 5 children aged 2 – 18 years. These factors alone are likely to make it difficult for the tenant to find private rental accommodation. I accept that publication of the tenant’s name in this decision will exacerbate this difficulty.
Considering the relatively low nature and extent of the breach, I find the tenant’s interests in suppression outweigh the public’s interest in publication. For this reason, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5460255 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5460255 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions