What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5485101 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord party is amended from “Accurate Infrastructure Solutions Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5485101?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5485101?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5485101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14196755-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5485101 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord party is amended from “Accurate Infrastructure Solutions Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5485101?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5485101?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5485101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14196755-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1011 Duke Street, Mahora, Hastings 4120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5485101 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 September 2026. The landlord was represented by Jameka Regaspe.

The landlord filed their application on 9 April 2026 and recorded the landlord as being “Accurate Infrastructure Solutions Limited [The tenant/s] landlord/s].” The tenancy agreement records the landlord as being “[The tenant/s] landlord/s].” Therefore, the landlord party to these proceedings is amended to reflect what is recorded in the tenancy agreement. Background

The landlord is involved with a company that brings in people from overseas to work in New Zealand. As part of this service, the landlord organises housing for the workers they bring in.

In this case, the tenancy address consists of a 3-bedroom home with a one- bedroom sleepout. There were 5 adults living in the main house and 2 living in the sleepout during the tenancy.

The landlord accepts the premises was operating as a boarding house at the time of the tenancy, because there were 6 or more people living in it. 1

At the hearing, the landlord withdrew their claims for rent arrears, electricity invoices and compensation for general repairs to the premises. The landlord confined their claim to $259.82 for cleaning at the end of the tenancy.

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The law

Because this was a boarding house tenancy, Part 2A of the RTA applies.

Section 66M RTA records a tenant’s responsibilities at the end of a boarding house tenancy. It states: 66MTenant’s obligations at end of tenancy On the termination of a tenancy, the tenant of a boarding house must – ... (c)leave the tenant’s boarding room in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove all rubbish from the room; and ... Evidence and submissions of the parties

The landlord claims the entire premises needed to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy, including all of the bedrooms. They submitted an invoice for $862.50. They seek $259.20 from the tenant.

The landlord submitted a copy of an exit inspection report with photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. The landlord was unable to identify the tenant’s bedroom.

The tenant appeared by telephone and tried to describe their bedroom. Unfortunately, the landlord was unable to match the tenant’s description to any of the photographs contained in the exit inspection report. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 66B.

The tenant claims they cleaned the premises and their bedroom at the end of the tenancy, but other tenants remained living in the premises, which might have caused the premises to become messy again. Analysis

The tenant is not responsible for leaving the common areas of the premises such as, the lounge, bathroom, kitchen and hallway in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord cannot seek compensation from the tenant for the costs incurred in cleaning these areas.

The landlord was unable to identify the tenant’s bedroom in the exit inspection photographs. This means I am unable to determine whether the tenant left their boarding room reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. Some of the bedrooms appear reasonably clean and tidy, whilst others do not.

Because the landlord is unable to identify what bedroom in the exit inspection photographs is the tenant’s, they have not proven that the tenant left their bedroom in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition.

For all of these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation of $259.82 is dismissed. Filing fee

The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claim. Therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons