What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5493249 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Global Property

How much money was awarded in case 5493249?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5493249?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5493249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14241284-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5493249 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Global Property

How much money was awarded in case 5493249?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5493249?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5493249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14241284-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Lot 2, 884 Manukau Road, Royal Oak 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5493249 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5493249 — net $378.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: (reduced	$350.00	Cleaning: (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$378.00
Bond	$2,587.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$378.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Global Property Limited $378.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,587.50 (6556452-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Global Property Limited: $378.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $2,209.50
The landlord’s claim for flooring replacement is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean. The tenancy ended on 29 March 2026. The tenants returned the following week to undertake further cleaning. The landlord provided a cleaning invoice from PCM Group Limited dated 20 April 2026.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs taken on 7 April 2026. No entry inspection report or photographs were provided by the landlord confirming the condition of the premises and carpet at the start of the tenancy on 25 November 2024. The tenant also provided her own evidence however this was not received until the morning of the hearing.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by the landlord I find that there were areas of the premises which had not been adequately cleaned. That said, the amount claimed for cleaning and carpet cleaning is simply not supported by the evidence filed in support. And because the landlord has not provided an entry inspection report it is not possible to determine the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for cleaning but reduce the amount awarded to $350.00 which I find is a fair and reasonable amount based on the limited evidence provided by the landlord.
The reduced amount ordered is established by the evidence provided.

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. Flooring damage claim
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to flooring.
The landlord has only provided a quote dated 20 April 2026 in support of this claim. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the owner is yet to have the flooring repaired. The tenant does not accept this claim.
It would be wrong for the landlord to obtain financial compensation for a replacement cost that has not actually been incurred, particularly where the landlord has retained the existing flooring and has not demonstrated that any money has been paid to replace it.
The purpose of compensation is to compensate for loss actually suffered and not to enable a landlord to recover the future cost of an improvement or replacement that has not occurred. This is particularly important in relation to flooring as the Tribunal must consider depreciation and the remaining useful life of the flooring when assessing any compensation.
Even if the Tribunal were satisfied that the flooring had suffered damage beyond fear wear and tear and that the tenant was responsible for that damage, the landlord has still failed to establish the amount of any actual loss suffered.
The claim for flooring replacement has not been established and is dismissed.
Because Global Property Limited has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5493249 — net $378.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: (reduced	$350.00	Cleaning: (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$378.00
Bond	$2,587.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$378.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Global Property Limited $378.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,587.50 (6556452-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Global Property Limited: $378.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $2,209.50
The landlord’s claim for flooring replacement is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean. The tenancy ended on 29 March 2026. The tenants returned the following week to undertake further cleaning. The landlord provided a cleaning invoice from PCM Group Limited dated 20 April 2026.
The landlord provided exit inspection photographs taken on 7 April 2026. No entry inspection report or photographs were provided by the landlord confirming the condition of the premises and carpet at the start of the tenancy on 25 November 2024. The tenant also provided her own evidence however this was not received until the morning of the hearing.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by the landlord I find that there were areas of the premises which had not been adequately cleaned. That said, the amount claimed for cleaning and carpet cleaning is simply not supported by the evidence filed in support. And because the landlord has not provided an entry inspection report it is not possible to determine the condition of the carpet at the start of the tenancy.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for cleaning but reduce the amount awarded to $350.00 which I find is a fair and reasonable amount based on the limited evidence provided by the landlord.
The reduced amount ordered is established by the evidence provided.

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. Flooring damage claim
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to flooring.
The landlord has only provided a quote dated 20 April 2026 in support of this claim. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that the owner is yet to have the flooring repaired. The tenant does not accept this claim.
It would be wrong for the landlord to obtain financial compensation for a replacement cost that has not actually been incurred, particularly where the landlord has retained the existing flooring and has not demonstrated that any money has been paid to replace it.
The purpose of compensation is to compensate for loss actually suffered and not to enable a landlord to recover the future cost of an improvement or replacement that has not occurred. This is particularly important in relation to flooring as the Tribunal must consider depreciation and the remaining useful life of the flooring when assessing any compensation.
Even if the Tribunal were satisfied that the flooring had suffered damage beyond fear wear and tear and that the tenant was responsible for that damage, the landlord has still failed to establish the amount of any actual loss suffered.
The claim for flooring replacement has not been established and is dismissed.
Because Global Property Limited has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5493249 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Lot 2, 884 Manukau Road, Royal Oak 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5493249 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Lot 2, 884 Manukau Road, Royal Oak 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.