What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469857 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5469857?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Half Variation Fee: $125.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $81.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469857?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13874617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5469857 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5469857?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Half Variation Fee: $125.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $81.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5469857?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5469857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13874617-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5469857 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469857 — net $206.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 March 2026	$81.43		Rent arrears to 13 March 2026
Cleaning	$250.00		Cleaning
Reimbursement half variation fee		$125.00	Reimbursement half variation fee
Total award	$331.43	$125.00
Net award	$206.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$206.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5469857 — net $206.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 March 2026	$81.43		Rent arrears to 13 March 2026
Cleaning	$250.00		Cleaning
Reimbursement half variation fee		$125.00	Reimbursement half variation fee
Total award	$331.43	$125.00
Net award	$206.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$206.43

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $206.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $206.43 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,073.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

[ Property manager] appeared for the landlord. The tenants appeared.
The tenancy commenced on 14 March 2025 for a fixed term ending 13 March 2026. On 16 March 2026, the tenant filed a claim seeking a refund of their bond. They also claim that a fee charged to vary the agreement was unreasonable and should be refunded. On 14 April 2026, the landlord filed a counterclaim for rent arrears and failure to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. Rent
The landlord has produced an up-to-date rent summary showing that the tenant owes one day’s rent. The tenant accepts the claim, and I award the amount claimed. Cleaning
The property consists of two bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, open plan dining / lounge, laundry, and internal garage.
The tenancy agreement records that two mattresses and one bed base were provided as chattels.
The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean, including the carpet and one of the mattresses.
The landlord is claiming $378.06 for cleaning the property, and $340.00 for cleaning the carpet and mattress.
The landlord has provided pre-tenancy and end-of-tenancy inspection reports, both of which include photographs, as well as invoices for general cleaning and for carpet and mattress cleaning.
The tenant denies that they failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. They state that the property was returned in the same condition as at the commencement of the tenancy. They also state that the pre-tenancy photographs were taken from a distance, while the end-of-tenancy photographs were taken close up, and that an accurate before-and-after comparison cannot be made. The tenant stated that they did not use the oven during the tenancy.
The tenant claims that the marks on the carpet, which are alleged to be stains, are in fact indentations left by furniture and are not staining or soiling. They again state that the carpet was in the same condition as at the commencement of the tenancy.
Despite the pre-tenancy inspection report clearly showing two mattresses at the property, the tenant stated that there was only one. They further state that the mattress present was stained on one side and that they flipped it over. They state that the end-of-tenancy photographs, which show two mattresses, do not show both sides, only the side that was already stained.
Ms Armstrong was not the property manager who conducted the pre-tenancy inspection but stated that the report clearly shows two mattresses. Law
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) of the Residential Act 1986 (Act).
The provision does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or immaculate condition.
The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific method to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the available evidence, including inspection reports and photographs.
Provided that the property was in a reasonably clean condition at the commencement of the tenancy, it should be returned in the same condition. Analysis and decision.
The end of tenancy photographs are greater in number and more detailed than the pre tenancy ones. There are some areas where a proper before and after comparison cannot be made because of the distances at which the photographs were taken and shadowing. There are also some areas, such as the rangehood filters and the area under the gas elements, that are not shown in any pre tenancy photographs.
Having considered the evidence and having been able to make a proper before- and-after comparison, I am satisfied that the tenant failed to leave the bathroom and a windowsill in one of the bedrooms reasonably clean. I am also satisfied that the carpet required vacuuming and was not left reasonably clean.
The cleaners charged $95.00 per hour for two cleaners for 4.25 hours. The tenant questions the hourly rate, and the hours required. Considering the areas I find required cleaning and based on my assessment of the time and effort required to return the property to a reasonably clean condition, I award the landlord $250.00.
Regarding the claim for carpet cleaning, the pre-tenancy photographs of the carpet are limited and insufficient to make a proper before-and-after comparison. Apart from one small stain, the others claimed by the landlord are difficult to observe. The claim for carpet cleaning is declined.
The mattress issue involves a direct conflict in evidence. The landlord stated that two mattresses were provided, as shown in the pre-tenancy checklist, and that both were returned soiled. The tenant denies that two were provided and stated that the one mattress provided was already stained on one side. The onus is on the landlord to establish that, one or both mattresses were stained during the tenancy. The pre-tenancy photographs show only one side of the mattress; there is no photograph of the other side. I also note that one mattress has a mattress protector, which is not shown in the end-of-tenancy photograph. I cannot, therefore, rule out that one side may have been stained at the commencement of the tenancy. In this case, there is insufficient evidence, and the claim is dismissed. Variation fee
In June 2025, the tenant requested a variation to the agreement to add [ tenant two] who is [ tenant ones] partner. The landlord agreed. On 18 June 2025, the landlord advised the tenant that the variation would incur an administrative fee of $250.00. The tenant questioned the fee and requested an itemised breakdown. The landlord replied that the fee was a flat fee, would not be itemised, and was provided for in clause 36 of the tenancy agreement. The tenant paid the fee. The agreement was varied in writing on 20 June 2025.
The original tenancy agreement allowed for two occupants, the original tenant and one other. The tenant stated that the variation was required for immigration purposes.
While the tenant accepted that a fee may be payable, they question whether the fee charged was reasonable. The tenant provided an email from the previous property manager suggesting that the fee structure was itemised and included set charges for credit checks and correspondence. The tenant stated that the incoming tenant had no credit record in the country, having recently arrived, and that the email correspondence concerning the matter did not justify the charge.
The landlord was unaware that the previous property manager had sent the email containing a breakdown of the fee. They stated that the clause in the agreement clearly provided that a fee would be charged for a variation and that it was a flat fee regardless of the work undertaken.
There has been a discussion as to the nature of the fee. I have raised the issue as to whether the fee charged by the landlord to vary the agreement constitutes key money, which is prima facie prohibited under the Act.
The landlord stated that they did not consider the fee to be key money. Law
Under section 13B (1) of the Act, variations and renewals of tenancy agreements shall be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant.
Section 17 of the Act states: 17 Requiring key money prohibited. (1) Subject to subsection (4), no person shall, without the prior consent of the Tribunal, require the payment of key money in respect of— (a) the grant, continuance, extension, variation, or renewal of any tenancy agreement; or (b) the assignment of a tenant’s interest under any tenancy agreement; or (c) the subletting of the whole or any part of the premises by a tenant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) limits or affects section 44A (which entitles a landlord to recover reasonable expenses on consenting to the tenant’s assigning, subletting, or parting with possession of the premises, or to termination of the tenancy by agreement). (3) The requiring of key money in contravention of subsection (1) is hereby declared to be an unlawful act. (3A) A landlord who contravenes subsection (1) commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B. (4) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any of the following: (a) any sum required or received for an option to enter into a tenancy agreement if the sum does not exceed 1 week’s rent payable under the agreement, and, upon the option being exercised, the sum is refunded or is applied toward the rent: (b) any sum that the landlord is authorised by any other provision of this Act to require or receive: (c) [Repealed] (d) any payment of a prescribed class.
Section 2(1) defines key money as any sum of money demanded by way of fine, premium, foregift, reimbursement of expenses, administration charges, or otherwise as consideration for the grant, continuance, extension, variation, or renewal of a tenancy agreement, or for consent to the surrender or disposition of the tenant’s interest under a tenancy agreement or to a subletting by the tenant; but does not include any sum payable or paid by way of rent or bond.
Section 11 of the Act states: 11 Act generally to apply despite contrary provisions. (1) Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless— (a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or (b) the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. (2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by this Act. (3) Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect. Analysis and decision
The tenancy agreement was varied under section 13B (1) of the Act. The tenant did not assign, sublet, part with possession, or terminate the agreement. Accordingly, the landlord was not entitled to recover costs under section 44A.
The fee was charged in respect of the variation of the tenancy agreement.
The fee therefore falls within the definition of key money under section 2(1) of the Act.
Although the landlord included a clause in the tenancy agreement permitting such a fee, under section 11(1), the clause was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and was prima facie of no effect.
The landlord has been unable to identify any provision in the Act authorising the charging of a fee (being key money), for a variation of the tenancy agreement.
However, section 11(1)(b) of the Act permits the Tribunal, upon considering the circumstances, and the interests of the parties, to permit a clause in the agreement that would otherwise be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
The application of section 11(1)(b) is discretionary and must be determined on the facts of the case.
The landlord has been unable to provide evidence of the work undertaken to complete the variation and relies on the flat fee as being reasonable.
The agreement did not need to be varied to allow [ tenant two] to occupy the property. The variation was not required by, nor did it benefit, the landlord. It was sought solely for the benefit of the tenant. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to allow the clause but only to the extent that it permits a reasonable charge.
Based on my assessment of the time and effort reasonably required to complete the variation, I am satisfied that only half the fee is justified. I therefore order that the landlord reimburse the tenant $125.00. Costs
Under section 102 (4) of the Act, the Tribunal has the discretion to reimburse the filing fee of a party that has been partly successful with their claim.
As both parties have been partly successful, any reimbursement to one would be cancelled by the award to the other. No orders are made. Name suppression
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 their name or identifying particulars of that party 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.
Globally assessed, I find that both parties have been sufficiently successful and are entitled to suppression of their names and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469857 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5469857 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions