What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5481270 about?

The tribunal order states: Jing Liu to pay Mackys Real Estate Limited T/A Bayleys In The North Natalie

How much money was awarded in case 5481270?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $371.43 awarded to landlord; Painting: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $6.30 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $160.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5481270?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5481270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13764060-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5481270 about?

The tribunal order states: Jing Liu to pay Mackys Real Estate Limited T/A Bayleys In The North Natalie

How much money was awarded in case 5481270?

Cleaning: $290.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $371.43 awarded to landlord; Painting: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $6.30 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $160.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5481270?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5481270?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13764060-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

154A Western Hills Drive, Kensington, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5481270 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5481270 — net $1,478.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$371.43	Rent arrears
Water rates	$160.65	Water rates
Cleaning	$100.00	14. The landlord applied for compensation for carpet cleaning and flea bombing in the sum of $290.00.
Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment	$290.00	14. The landlord applied for compensation for carpet cleaning and flea bombing in the sum of $290.00.
Rubbish removal	$6.30	Rubbish removal
Repairs: painting	$550.00	Repairs: painting
Net award	$1,478.38
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,478.38

Order

Jing Liu to pay Mackys Real Estate Limited T/A Bayleys In The North Natalie Cherrington $1,478.38 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6539648-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Mackys Real Estate Limited T/A Bayleys In The North Natalie Cherrington: $1,478.38 Jing Liu: $1,121.62

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant was represented at the hearing by Mr Wright.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for release of her bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The Tribunal is not required to ascertain the truth, but only to make a finding of whether the party bringing the claim has shown that their version is more likely than not.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord claimed that the tenancy ended on 25 January 2026, the landlord having received an e-mail from the tenant dated 23 December 2025, giving notice to end the tenancy on the 25 th . The tenant’s evidence was that the tenancy was to have ended on 24 January 2026. In this matter I prefer the evidence of the landlord and find that the tenancy ended on 25 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $371.43 for rent and $160.65 for water rates.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s.45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an 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 way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord confirmed that the cleaning carried out, for which they seek compensation, was the only cleaning carried out between the end of this tenancy and the commencement of a new tenancy on 28 March 2026. It is generally considered by the Tribunal that the standard of cleanliness required at the commencement of a new tenancy is higher than the reasonably clean and tidy standard required of tenants leaving a tenancy.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Having considered the evidence provided by the parties, and having reviewed the photos provided by the landlord, I consider that some cleaning would have been required at the end of this tenancy to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I consider that a reasonable sum for compensation would be $100.00. The tenant is ordered to pay that amount to the landlord.
The landlord applied for compensation for carpet cleaning and flea bombing in the sum of $290.00. The landlord provided photos of the carpet which showed that some areas had not been left reasonably clean and tidy. The contractor applied a flea treatment to deal with fleas discovered at the premises. The sum claimed is reasonable and is proven.
The tenant accepted that there were two cats at the premises for a very short period of time and indicated that neighbouring cats may also have caused the fleas to be present.
The landlord sought compensation for $53.97 for flea bombs that had been used which did not eradicate the fleas. I do not consider that the tenant should be required to compensate the landlord twice for flea treatment. The claim is dismissed.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant consented to an order being made for $6.30 for a tip fee.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord alleges that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The walls were damaged. Photos were provided which show marks on the wall and areas where there were holes. Some of the damage had been caused by the removal of adhesive hooks.
This was a tenancy of approximately 18 months. Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition. Where a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fear wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fear wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim. Fair wear and tear includes damage during ordinary use.
The landlord provided a range of photographs. I have carefully reviewed each of the photographs and consider that the damage shown in some of the photographs is precisely “fair wear and tear”.
At the same time, some photos also show holes which appear to have been caused by the removal of adhesive hooks and other small holes. Where the landlord’s claim can be explained by fair wear and tear, the landlord’s claim must fail. The then remaining damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider that a reasonable charge including labour and materials for the repair of the damage which is not fair wear and tear is $550.00.
The amounts ordered are proven.
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. As neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing I make no order for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5481270 — net $1,478.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$371.43	Rent arrears
Water rates	$160.65	Water rates
Cleaning	$100.00	14. The landlord applied for compensation for carpet cleaning and flea bombing in the sum of $290.00.
Carpet Cleaning: and flea treatment	$290.00	14. The landlord applied for compensation for carpet cleaning and flea bombing in the sum of $290.00.
Rubbish removal	$6.30	Rubbish removal
Repairs: painting	$550.00	Repairs: painting
Net award	$1,478.38
Bond	$2,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,478.38

Order

Jing Liu to pay Mackys Real Estate Limited T/A Bayleys In The North Natalie Cherrington $1,478.38 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6539648-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Mackys Real Estate Limited T/A Bayleys In The North Natalie Cherrington: $1,478.38 Jing Liu: $1,121.62

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant was represented at the hearing by Mr Wright.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for release of her bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The Tribunal is not required to ascertain the truth, but only to make a finding of whether the party bringing the claim has shown that their version is more likely than not.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord claimed that the tenancy ended on 25 January 2026, the landlord having received an e-mail from the tenant dated 23 December 2025, giving notice to end the tenancy on the 25 th . The tenant’s evidence was that the tenancy was to have ended on 24 January 2026. In this matter I prefer the evidence of the landlord and find that the tenancy ended on 25 January 2026. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $371.43 for rent and $160.65 for water rates.

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

Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s.45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an 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 way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord confirmed that the cleaning carried out, for which they seek compensation, was the only cleaning carried out between the end of this tenancy and the commencement of a new tenancy on 28 March 2026. It is generally considered by the Tribunal that the standard of cleanliness required at the commencement of a new tenancy is higher than the reasonably clean and tidy standard required of tenants leaving a tenancy.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
Having considered the evidence provided by the parties, and having reviewed the photos provided by the landlord, I consider that some cleaning would have been required at the end of this tenancy to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. I consider that a reasonable sum for compensation would be $100.00. The tenant is ordered to pay that amount to the landlord.
The landlord applied for compensation for carpet cleaning and flea bombing in the sum of $290.00. The landlord provided photos of the carpet which showed that some areas had not been left reasonably clean and tidy. The contractor applied a flea treatment to deal with fleas discovered at the premises. The sum claimed is reasonable and is proven.
The tenant accepted that there were two cats at the premises for a very short period of time and indicated that neighbouring cats may also have caused the fleas to be present.
The landlord sought compensation for $53.97 for flea bombs that had been used which did not eradicate the fleas. I do not consider that the tenant should be required to compensate the landlord twice for flea treatment. The claim is dismissed.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all rubbish, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant consented to an order being made for $6.30 for a tip fee.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord alleges that the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The walls were damaged. Photos were provided which show marks on the wall and areas where there were holes. Some of the damage had been caused by the removal of adhesive hooks.
This was a tenancy of approximately 18 months. Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition. Where a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fear wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to fear wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim. Fair wear and tear includes damage during ordinary use.
The landlord provided a range of photographs. I have carefully reviewed each of the photographs and consider that the damage shown in some of the photographs is precisely “fair wear and tear”.
At the same time, some photos also show holes which appear to have been caused by the removal of adhesive hooks and other small holes. Where the landlord’s claim can be explained by fair wear and tear, the landlord’s claim must fail. The then remaining damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider that a reasonable charge including labour and materials for the repair of the damage which is not fair wear and tear is $550.00.
The amounts ordered are proven.
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. As neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing I make no order for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5481270 — Property damage at 154A Western Hills Drive, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5481270 — Property damage at 154A Western Hills Drive, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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