What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489527 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5489527?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489527?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489527?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13863743-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489527 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5489527?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489527?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489527?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13863743-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5489527 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5489527 — net $118.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$40.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$118.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$118.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $118.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 7 July 2026. The tenant did not.
The tenant filed their application with the Tribunal first on 27 January 2026 seeking a refund of the bond of $3,800.00. A hearing was held on 22 April 2026. The landlord had recently filed a cross-application, which had not been processed in time for the hearing. Therefore, the hearing was adjourned to a later date to hear both applications together. In an order dated 22 April 2026, I directed that $3,348.10 from the bond be refunded to the tenant and $441.90 remain with the Bond Centre.
On 2 July 2026, the tenant contacted the Registry, advising that they wished to withdraw their application, because they had received a full refund of the bond.
On 7 July 2026, the Bond Centre confirmed that the bond had been refunded to the tenant in full in error.
The tenant was aware that the landlord’s application would be proceeding on 7 July 2026. The tenant was properly served with a copy of the notice of hearing and landlord’s application on 2 May 2026. Therefore, I determined the landlord’s application in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The sole issue I must determine is whether the tenant complied with their obligations at the end of the tenancy.

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

The 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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances other than facilities.” 7 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Rubbish
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show that recycling bin was full and there was glass left in the glass bin. Two boogieboards and other 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. miscellaneous items were also left outside. For these reasons, I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $40.00 (including GST) to remove the rubbish. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Cleaning
The landlord seeks $280.00 (including GST) for cleaning the inside of the premises. The landlord claims it took the cleaner 7 hours to clean the property, which indicates it was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the premises were mostly left in a very reasonably clean and tidy condition, with the exception of a small area of the kitchen. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped, and bench surfaces wiped down. The bathrooms have been cleaned. The oven and stovetop have been cleaned as well. There is a small amount of laundry powder left on the washing machine however, this is minor. The same can be said regarding dust on the skirting boards and light switches. There is a small area in the kitchen that is not reasonably clean and tidy, however. Cups were left in the dishwasher and there is rubbish in one of the kitchen drawers or cupboards. Some cleaning products have also been left behind by the tenant under the kitchen sink. These are the only areas I find the tenant did not leave reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $50.00, which I find reasonably reflects the amount of time and effort required to attend to the areas in the kitchen that required further cleaning in. The rest of the premises was left reasonably clean and tidy. Gardening
The landlord claims that the outdoor garden was not left reasonably clean and tidy. They point to shrubs and weeds present in the paved area of the garden, as well as overgrown lawn/garden in between the house and fence.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show that shrubs and weeds were present in the paved area of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. By returning the premises in a similar condition, I do not find that the tenant left it unreasonably clean and tidy.
No photographs of the area between the house and fence taken at the beginning of the tenancy were submitted. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that this area of the garden was not also overgrown and untidy at the beginning of the tenancy and returned in a similar state.
For these reasons, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
Publication of the tenant’s name in this decision is likely to negatively affect their reputation and prejudice their ability to find private rental accommodation in the future. The breaches committed by the tenant are minor. Only a small amount of rubbish was left behind at the end of the tenancy and only a small area of the kitchen was left unreasonably clean and tidy. In all other respects, the tenant appears to have been a very good tenant. For these reasons, I find the public’s interest in publication to be low and outweighed by the tenant’s interest in suppression. I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5489527 — net $118.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$40.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$118.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$118.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $118.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 7 July 2026. The tenant did not.
The tenant filed their application with the Tribunal first on 27 January 2026 seeking a refund of the bond of $3,800.00. A hearing was held on 22 April 2026. The landlord had recently filed a cross-application, which had not been processed in time for the hearing. Therefore, the hearing was adjourned to a later date to hear both applications together. In an order dated 22 April 2026, I directed that $3,348.10 from the bond be refunded to the tenant and $441.90 remain with the Bond Centre.
On 2 July 2026, the tenant contacted the Registry, advising that they wished to withdraw their application, because they had received a full refund of the bond.
On 7 July 2026, the Bond Centre confirmed that the bond had been refunded to the tenant in full in error.
The tenant was aware that the landlord’s application would be proceeding on 7 July 2026. The tenant was properly served with a copy of the notice of hearing and landlord’s application on 2 May 2026. Therefore, I determined the landlord’s application in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy. The sole issue I must determine is whether the tenant complied with their obligations at the end of the tenancy.

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

The 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. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances other than facilities.” 7 Therefore, the obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to the inside and outside of the premises. Rubbish
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show that recycling bin was full and there was glass left in the glass bin. Two boogieboards and other 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770]. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. miscellaneous items were also left outside. For these reasons, I find the tenant did not remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $40.00 (including GST) to remove the rubbish. Their claim for compensation is granted for this amount. Cleaning
The landlord seeks $280.00 (including GST) for cleaning the inside of the premises. The landlord claims it took the cleaner 7 hours to clean the property, which indicates it was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the premises were mostly left in a very reasonably clean and tidy condition, with the exception of a small area of the kitchen. The floors have been vacuumed and mopped, and bench surfaces wiped down. The bathrooms have been cleaned. The oven and stovetop have been cleaned as well. There is a small amount of laundry powder left on the washing machine however, this is minor. The same can be said regarding dust on the skirting boards and light switches. There is a small area in the kitchen that is not reasonably clean and tidy, however. Cups were left in the dishwasher and there is rubbish in one of the kitchen drawers or cupboards. Some cleaning products have also been left behind by the tenant under the kitchen sink. These are the only areas I find the tenant did not leave reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $50.00, which I find reasonably reflects the amount of time and effort required to attend to the areas in the kitchen that required further cleaning in. The rest of the premises was left reasonably clean and tidy. Gardening
The landlord claims that the outdoor garden was not left reasonably clean and tidy. They point to shrubs and weeds present in the paved area of the garden, as well as overgrown lawn/garden in between the house and fence.
The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy show that shrubs and weeds were present in the paved area of the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. By returning the premises in a similar condition, I do not find that the tenant left it unreasonably clean and tidy.
No photographs of the area between the house and fence taken at the beginning of the tenancy were submitted. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that this area of the garden was not also overgrown and untidy at the beginning of the tenancy and returned in a similar state.
For these reasons, the landlord has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord has been substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant the landlord’s request for name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the tenant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
Publication of the tenant’s name in this decision is likely to negatively affect their reputation and prejudice their ability to find private rental accommodation in the future. The breaches committed by the tenant are minor. Only a small amount of rubbish was left behind at the end of the tenancy and only a small area of the kitchen was left unreasonably clean and tidy. In all other respects, the tenant appears to have been a very good tenant. For these reasons, I find the public’s interest in publication to be low and outweighed by the tenant’s interest in suppression. I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489527 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489527 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions