How much money was awarded in case 5467750?

Cleaning: $399.91 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $573.85 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $85.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $112.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467750?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13868221-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5467750?

Cleaning: $399.91 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $573.85 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $85.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $112.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467750?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13868221-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5467750 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5467750 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5467750 — net $1,171.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 December 2025	$85.71	Rent arrears to 18 December 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$399.91	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$573.85	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$112.30	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,171.77
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,171.77

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,171.77 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,171.77 [The tenant/s]: $1,228.23

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant made an application for a refund of the bond. The landlord has made a cross application seeking rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was originally due to end on 12 December 2025; however, the tenant did not move for various reasons detailed in messages between the parties. The landlord allowed the tenant further time to move and noted that the tenancy officially ended on 18 December 2025. The landlord provided rent records that prove the amount owing of $85.71 through to 18 December 2025.

The tenant did not dispute this amount and the amount ordered is proved.

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 (RTA).

The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish and as a result they were required to carry out additional works to meet the statutory standard. This included carpet cleaning at a cost of $399.91, general cleaning at a cost of $573.85 and rubbish removal at a cost of $112.30. Photographs and evidence of costings have been provided.

The cleaning invoices refers to cleaning to the kitchen, lounge and entrance, bathroom, all three bedrooms, laundry and garage. The carpet cleaning invoice notes specialist stain treatment to unknown black stains on multiple carpeted areas and pink staining on the lounge carpet, as well as steam cleaning and sanitising the lounge and hallway carpet.

The tenant disputes these costs as she was willing and able to complete these items herself but was not given an opportunity to return to the property to do so. Particularly as the locks were changed by the landlord preventing her any further access.

On review of all the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. There is no requirement that a tenant be able to remain at a property until cleaning (or other required works) is finished, nor is there any obligation on a landlord to enable a tenant to return after the tenancy has ended to complete outstanding items. I empathise with the tenant’s position and her difficulties in managing the process, however, I also consider that the landlord was more than reasonable in allowing the tenant additional time at the property after 12 December 2025.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord claims the cost of changing the locks on the basis of a comment made by the tenant during a phone call. The evidence shows that the tenant was frustrated and made a remark that the landlord interpreted as a threat to the property. However, there is no evidence that the tenant actually damaged the property, refused to return the keys, or otherwise prevented the landlord from taking possession (despite the tenancy end date being pushed out).

The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has established a real and immediate threat to the property that would justify changing the locks and claiming the cost from the tenant. The landlord’s actions appear instead to have been precautionary.

Accordingly, the claim for locksmith costs is dismissed. Other matters

I have granted name suppression to both parties, as both have had some level of success in their claims. See section 95A of the RTA.

I have not refunded the filing fee to either party and consider in the circumstances that these costs should lie where they fall. R Harvey-Lane 07 July 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5467750 — net $1,171.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 December 2025	$85.71	Rent arrears to 18 December 2025
Carpet Cleaning	$399.91	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$573.85	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$112.30	Rubbish removal
Net award	$1,171.77
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,171.77

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,171.77 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,171.77 [The tenant/s]: $1,228.23

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant made an application for a refund of the bond. The landlord has made a cross application seeking rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was originally due to end on 12 December 2025; however, the tenant did not move for various reasons detailed in messages between the parties. The landlord allowed the tenant further time to move and noted that the tenancy officially ended on 18 December 2025. The landlord provided rent records that prove the amount owing of $85.71 through to 18 December 2025.
The tenant did not dispute this amount and the amount ordered is proved.

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 (RTA).
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy or remove all rubbish and as a result they were required to carry out additional works to meet the statutory standard. This included carpet cleaning at a cost of $399.91, general cleaning at a cost of $573.85 and rubbish removal at a cost of $112.30. Photographs and evidence of costings have been provided.
The cleaning invoices refers to cleaning to the kitchen, lounge and entrance, bathroom, all three bedrooms, laundry and garage. The carpet cleaning invoice notes specialist stain treatment to unknown black stains on multiple carpeted areas and pink staining on the lounge carpet, as well as steam cleaning and sanitising the lounge and hallway carpet.
The tenant disputes these costs as she was willing and able to complete these items herself but was not given an opportunity to return to the property to do so. Particularly as the locks were changed by the landlord preventing her any further access.
On review of all the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. There is no requirement that a tenant be able to remain at a property until cleaning (or other required works) is finished, nor is there any obligation on a landlord to enable a tenant to return after the tenancy has ended to complete outstanding items. I empathise with the tenant’s position and her difficulties in managing the process, however, I also consider that the landlord was more than reasonable in allowing the tenant additional time at the property after 12 December 2025.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord claims the cost of changing the locks on the basis of a comment made by the tenant during a phone call. The evidence shows that the tenant was frustrated and made a remark that the landlord interpreted as a threat to the property. However, there is no evidence that the tenant actually damaged the property, refused to return the keys, or otherwise prevented the landlord from taking possession (despite the tenancy end date being pushed out).
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has established a real and immediate threat to the property that would justify changing the locks and claiming the cost from the tenant. The landlord’s actions appear instead to have been precautionary.
Accordingly, the claim for locksmith costs is dismissed. Other matters
I have granted name suppression to both parties, as both have had some level of success in their claims. See section 95A of the RTA.
I have not refunded the filing fee to either party and consider in the circumstances that these costs should lie where they fall. R Harvey-Lane 07 July 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5467750 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5467750 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions