What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465927 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 5465927?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $530.32 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $402.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465927?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465927?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13543432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465927 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 5465927?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $530.32 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $402.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465927?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465927?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13543432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465927 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465927 — net $1,248.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$530.32	Cleaning
Repairs: Painting	$402.50	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,248.32
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,248.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Seerat Verma to pay [The landlord/s] $1,248.32 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,248.32 Seerat Verma: $1,111.68

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms [N].
There is a dispute about the bond. The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation and partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy ran from 3 September 2021 to 9 February 2026.
When the tenant dropped off the keys at the property management office, he asked that he be informed about anything that needed to be done following the end of the tenancy. He said that the receptionist told him that he would be told if there was anything required.
An exit inspection was conducted on 13 February 2026 and revealed some items that required remedy. Because of a technical error, the exit inspection was not immediately forwarded to the tenant, but on 23 February it was sent through.
The tenant is aggrieved that he was not given an opportunity to rectify any of the issues raised. He says that he should have been give a 14-day notice to remedy.
The tenant has misunderstood the role of 14-day notices. The Residential Tenancies Act provides that 14-day notices to remedy must be issued before certain applications are made to the Tribunal. The situations all arise when a tenancy is current, not after a tenancy has ended. The common ones are where the landlord gives a 14-day notice to remedy a breach of the agreement under section 56. If the tenant does not remedy the breach, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a termination of the tenancy.
In this situation, the tenant’s obligation was to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. Although sometimes tenants are allowed an opportunity to return to the premises after a tenancy has ended, there is no law that requires a landlord to provide that opportunity to a former tenant.
The photographs show that although some cleaning had been done, three bins of rubbish had been left, and a drawer had not been emptied. The striking issue, however is the state of the walls. Usually, the requirement to leave the premiss reasonably clean and tidy would not necessarily involve cleaning the walls, but in this instance, the doors and walls, including the stairway walls were particularly grubby, with a build-up of grime around door handles. It was extensive.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $530.32 cleaning “the kitchen, cupboards, drawers, rangehood, bathroom, ceiling fan, showers, toilets, vanities, walls throughout heavily marked, blinds, blue marks on heat pump and decking but did not remove completely, garage walls and door, emptied and cleaned bins. There was a fee for the dump as well.
I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The cleaning fee is reasonable.
The landlord also had the carpets cleaned. The tenant objects to paying this because there is no obligation for the tenant to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy. It is correct that a landlord cannot include a clause which requires a tenant to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy regardless of the state of the carpet. However, there are circumstances where the carpets require cleaning as part of the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs show various stains which look like some spills. I find it was reasonable that the landlord decided that the carpet required cleaning. The invoice for carpet cleaning of $287.50 is reasonable.

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.
The landlord provided copies of entry inspection and exit inspection photographs. At the start of the tenancy, the walls had been recently painted.
The tenant accepts that as the result of a child safety gate they had installed at the top of the stairs, there were screw holes left.
The landlord says that the wall by the kitchen island bench is heavily marked and gouged, the paint had come off at on the top of some door frames where the tenants had hung things on the door. There were marks on the wall and ceilings in the lounge where incense had been burned, and heavy marks in the wardrobes. There were some patched areas in the garage where the tenant had attempted to undertake some repairs.
The tenant says that the marks on the walls could have been cleaned.
The landlord said that attempts had been made to clean the walls but the marks remained. There are also some gouges.
A few scuffs could be characterised as fair wear and tear, but I am satisfied that the photos show extensive marking and some scratches and dents. The efforts to undertake further intensive scrubbing and cleaning would be as time- consuming or costly as painting them. In addition, there are some screw holes, chips and and gouges that require filling, sanding and painting. Rectifying the issue in the garage alone, would usually generate an invoice in the region of $200. The invoice for $402.50 is reasonable.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and the landlord is entitled to name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465927 — net $1,248.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$530.32	Cleaning
Repairs: Painting	$402.50	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,248.32
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,248.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Seerat Verma to pay [The landlord/s] $1,248.32 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,248.32 Seerat Verma: $1,111.68

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms [N].
There is a dispute about the bond. The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for compensation and partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy ran from 3 September 2021 to 9 February 2026.
When the tenant dropped off the keys at the property management office, he asked that he be informed about anything that needed to be done following the end of the tenancy. He said that the receptionist told him that he would be told if there was anything required.
An exit inspection was conducted on 13 February 2026 and revealed some items that required remedy. Because of a technical error, the exit inspection was not immediately forwarded to the tenant, but on 23 February it was sent through.
The tenant is aggrieved that he was not given an opportunity to rectify any of the issues raised. He says that he should have been give a 14-day notice to remedy.
The tenant has misunderstood the role of 14-day notices. The Residential Tenancies Act provides that 14-day notices to remedy must be issued before certain applications are made to the Tribunal. The situations all arise when a tenancy is current, not after a tenancy has ended. The common ones are where the landlord gives a 14-day notice to remedy a breach of the agreement under section 56. If the tenant does not remedy the breach, the landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a termination of the tenancy.
In this situation, the tenant’s obligation was to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. Although sometimes tenants are allowed an opportunity to return to the premises after a tenancy has ended, there is no law that requires a landlord to provide that opportunity to a former tenant.
The photographs show that although some cleaning had been done, three bins of rubbish had been left, and a drawer had not been emptied. The striking issue, however is the state of the walls. Usually, the requirement to leave the premiss reasonably clean and tidy would not necessarily involve cleaning the walls, but in this instance, the doors and walls, including the stairway walls were particularly grubby, with a build-up of grime around door handles. It was extensive.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $530.32 cleaning “the kitchen, cupboards, drawers, rangehood, bathroom, ceiling fan, showers, toilets, vanities, walls throughout heavily marked, blinds, blue marks on heat pump and decking but did not remove completely, garage walls and door, emptied and cleaned bins. There was a fee for the dump as well.
I find that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The cleaning fee is reasonable.
The landlord also had the carpets cleaned. The tenant objects to paying this because there is no obligation for the tenant to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy. It is correct that a landlord cannot include a clause which requires a tenant to clean the carpets at the end of the tenancy regardless of the state of the carpet. However, there are circumstances where the carpets require cleaning as part of the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs show various stains which look like some spills. I find it was reasonable that the landlord decided that the carpet required cleaning. The invoice for carpet cleaning of $287.50 is reasonable.

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.
The landlord provided copies of entry inspection and exit inspection photographs. At the start of the tenancy, the walls had been recently painted.
The tenant accepts that as the result of a child safety gate they had installed at the top of the stairs, there were screw holes left.
The landlord says that the wall by the kitchen island bench is heavily marked and gouged, the paint had come off at on the top of some door frames where the tenants had hung things on the door. There were marks on the wall and ceilings in the lounge where incense had been burned, and heavy marks in the wardrobes. There were some patched areas in the garage where the tenant had attempted to undertake some repairs.
The tenant says that the marks on the walls could have been cleaned.
The landlord said that attempts had been made to clean the walls but the marks remained. There are also some gouges.
A few scuffs could be characterised as fair wear and tear, but I am satisfied that the photos show extensive marking and some scratches and dents. The efforts to undertake further intensive scrubbing and cleaning would be as time- consuming or costly as painting them. In addition, there are some screw holes, chips and and gouges that require filling, sanding and painting. Rectifying the issue in the garage alone, would usually generate an invoice in the region of $200. The invoice for $402.50 is reasonable.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee and the landlord is entitled to name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465927 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465927 — Cleanliness

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

Frequently asked questions

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

Frequently asked questions