How much money was awarded in case 5478731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5478731?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5478731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13854401-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5478731?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5478731?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5478731?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13854401-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36A Jean Batten Lane, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5478731 — Cleanliness

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5478731 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (BN-17525901) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (BN-17525901) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.

Grenadier Rent Shop Limited t/as Harcourts Grenadier Rent Shop (as agent for Kowhai Meadows Ltd) is to pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee for the tenants’ application.

Reasons

The tenancy began on 30 August 2024 and ended on 14 March 2026.

The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond.

The landlord’s cross-application seeks $538.32 from the bond comprised of: $243.80 for cleaning, $139.15 for lawnmowing and weeding, and $155,87 for carpet stain removal and odour treatment.

The hearing took place by videoconference on 6 July 2026. Both parties attended the hearing.

Tenants must leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy” at the end of the tenancy. “Reasonably clean and tidy” is not defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. It is essentially a subjective judgment that landlords, tenants, and the Tenancy Tribunal make on a daily basis.

Some established principles are: a. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard than an average bystander would consider reasonable, not commercially clean or to a hotel or show home standard. b. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard that landlords consider acceptable for a new tenant. Therefore, landlords can expect to do some cleaning between tenancies. c. Odours from normal cooking do not render the premises not reasonably clean tidy. 1

Ms Paraha provided a copy of the final inspection report with photographs.

Mr Kumar also provided his own photographs from the end of the tenancy.

The premises were not perfect at the end of the tenancy. The lawns had been mowed but the grass was longer than as shown in the entry inspection. The photographs do not show the need for weeding. There were some small marks on curtains, dust on skirtings, pegs left on the washing line, and a mark on the carpet in the lounge (although the latter is difficult to see on the end of tenancy photographs).

People can have genuinely different views about what amounts to reasonably clean and tidy, and I accept that in the case the landlord and tenant both acted in good faith. The only comment that I will make in this regard is that the disputed costs of $538.32 were finalised by early April, and perhaps the landlord could have allowed the release of all but that amount of the bond at that time.

On the evidence available to me my finding is that the tenants met the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. The small amount of work that the landlord has had done (3 hours of cleaning, 1 hour of weeding, carpet de-oderising) is, in my view, in the category of ‘normal’ between tenancy cleaning and tidying to prepare the property for a new tenant.

Therefore I find that the tenant is entitled to refund of the bond in full.

Because the tenants have been successful in their application, I must also award them the filing fee of $28.00. 2 1 Yzendoorn v Thavaraja TT Hamilton TT2354/03, 31 October 2003 2 Section 102(4)(a) RTA

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (BN-17525901) to [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] immediately.
Grenadier Rent Shop Limited t/as Harcourts Grenadier Rent Shop (as agent for Kowhai Meadows Ltd) is to pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee for the tenants’ application.

Reasons

The tenancy began on 30 August 2024 and ended on 14 March 2026.
The tenant’s application seeks refund of the bond.
The landlord’s cross-application seeks $538.32 from the bond comprised of: $243.80 for cleaning, $139.15 for lawnmowing and weeding, and $155,87 for carpet stain removal and odour treatment.
The hearing took place by videoconference on 6 July 2026. Both parties attended the hearing.
Tenants must leave the premises “reasonably clean and tidy” at the end of the tenancy. “Reasonably clean and tidy” is not defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. It is essentially a subjective judgment that landlords, tenants, and the Tenancy Tribunal make on a daily basis.
Some established principles are: a. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard than an average bystander would consider reasonable, not commercially clean or to a hotel or show home standard. b. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard that landlords consider acceptable for a new tenant. Therefore, landlords can expect to do some cleaning between tenancies. c. Odours from normal cooking do not render the premises not reasonably clean tidy. 1
Ms Paraha provided a copy of the final inspection report with photographs.
Mr Kumar also provided his own photographs from the end of the tenancy.
The premises were not perfect at the end of the tenancy. The lawns had been mowed but the grass was longer than as shown in the entry inspection. The photographs do not show the need for weeding. There were some small marks on curtains, dust on skirtings, pegs left on the washing line, and a mark on the carpet in the lounge (although the latter is difficult to see on the end of tenancy photographs).
People can have genuinely different views about what amounts to reasonably clean and tidy, and I accept that in the case the landlord and tenant both acted in good faith. The only comment that I will make in this regard is that the disputed costs of $538.32 were finalised by early April, and perhaps the landlord could have allowed the release of all but that amount of the bond at that time.
On the evidence available to me my finding is that the tenants met the standard of reasonably clean and tidy. The small amount of work that the landlord has had done (3 hours of cleaning, 1 hour of weeding, carpet de-oderising) is, in my view, in the category of ‘normal’ between tenancy cleaning and tidying to prepare the property for a new tenant.
Therefore I find that the tenant is entitled to refund of the bond in full.
Because the tenants have been successful in their application, I must also award them the filing fee of $28.00. 2 1 Yzendoorn v Thavaraja TT Hamilton TT2354/03, 31 October 2003 2 Section 102(4)(a) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5478731 — Cleanliness at 36A Jean Batten Lane, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5478731 — Cleanliness at 36A Jean Batten Lane, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions