Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5470159 — Cleanliness
Decided 16 Jun 2026 · Published 16 Jun 2026 · Application 5470159
- Cleanliness
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
J Greene
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- By consent, [the tenant] must pay Ashleigh Rose Carter $90.00 immediately being the replacement cost of damaged curtains.
- The landlord’s remaining claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Anderson represented the landlord with the Tribunal’s consent.
- The landlord has applied for costs arising from the end of the tenancy. Background
- The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy that the landlord wanted to end early (about 3 months into the term) because the property was to be sold. The tenant co-operated with that request.
- As part of the process of negotiating the end of the tenancy, the landlord paid the bond to the tenant. The landlord’s claims
- The landlord then made an application for costs from the tenant. The landlord’s claims are for: •Cleaning - $400.00 •Rubbish removal - $200.00 •The replacement of a door - $100.00 •A carpet repair - $200.00 •The repair of a wall socket - $50.00 •The repair of pantry door hinges – 100.00 •Curtain replacement - $90.00.
- The tenant accepted responsibility for the replacement of curtains. I allow that claim by consent.
- The tenant defended the remaining claims made against him.
- The tenant said he offered to clean the house, but the landlord wanted him out as soon as possible so she arranged someone to do the cleaning.
- The tenant said he paid a contractor $850.00 to remove rubbish. The contractor did some work on the first day and when he returned the second day the remaining rubbish had been removed.
- The tenant said that the door handle stopped working due to wear. When the door would not open when his young son was in the bath, he had to kick the door. He offered to replace the door. The landlord told him she would reimburse the cost.
- The tenant said he did not cause any damage to the carpet, the wall plug, or the cabinet hinges. Law
- Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and remove all rubbish when they vacate a tenancy. Tenants are responsible for damage caused carelessly or intentionally during the tenancy that is beyond fair wear and tear 1 .
- Section 85 RTA is important in this case. So, I will set it out in full: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Discussion
- What is unusual about this application is that the landlord paid the bond to the tenant in full. That would suggest that the landlord did not intend making claims against the tenant.
- The landlord obtained a considerable benefit because the tenant agreed to end the fixed term tenancy well before the end of the term which allowed the landlord to sell the premises. That required the tenant to relocate and there would have been costs associated with that.
- Further, some of the landlord’s claims might better be regarded as repairs and maintenance – the door on which the handle malfunctioned, the wall socket, the cabinet hinges.
- The substantial merits and justice of this case favour the tenant. The costs incurred by the landlord are ones she should bear given the considerable benefit she obtained by having a tenant who agreed to end the fixed term tenancy early, enabling a sale of the premises. Another tenant might simply have said no. Result
- Other than the claim the tenant accepted, I dismiss the landlord’s application. 1 See sections 40(1) and 40(2)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) Name suppression
- The landlord’s representative did not seek name suppression for the landlord. The tenant sought name suppression. I have made an order suppressing the tenant’s name as his defence to the application is mostly successful 2 .