What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5495729 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 5495729?

Cleaning: $1,585.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495729?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13837595-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5495729 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 5495729?

Cleaning: $1,585.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495729?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13837595-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5495729 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495729 — net $1,613.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Curtain and drape cleaning	$1,585.00	Curtain and drape cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,613.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,613.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,613.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $0.00 [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $0.00 DescriptionLandlord Curtain and drape cleaning$1,585.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,613.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,613.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has ended, and while there were a range of issues, most have been resolved by the parties directly. The only remaining issue relates to liability for cleaning of the curtains at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s position is that they were mould-stained, whereas the tenants’ position is that they reflect what would be fair wear and tear, in a four-year tenancy.
The hearing was convened in Wellington today. The tenants appeared in person, the landlord is no longer based in Wellington, so has provided a written submission which I have taken into consideration.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 28 th of February 2022. Over the course of time, the composition of the tenants changed. The original rental for the property was $1,650. The tenancy agreement records that there were new curtains at the start of the Tenancy.
An invoice has been provided for the supply and installation of curtains, drapes and roman blinds, which include hardware like tracks, the invoice totals $7,159.22.
The tenancy ended on 20 February 2026.
The landlord has provided an invoice from Fabricare/Floorcare Limited for removing, cleaning, and re-hanging 11 curtains and five Roman blinds, to the sum of $1,585.00.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord has presented their case in writing.
The landlord considers that the tenants have not kept the property reasonably clean, which has led to contamination of the curtains with mould.
The landlord’s position is that the property is a dry dwelling, and that the tenants would be responsible for properly ventilating the house as needed.
In response to the tenants having raised the dryer being non-vented, and therefore releasing moisture into the property, the landlord responded that the dryer was the tenants property, not the landlords.
The landlord submits that the tenants have not provided proof that they would ventilate the property every day, as they suggested occurred.
The landlord’s position is that evidence could be provided if required that all curtains were mouldy, and that the curtains were new at the start of the tenancy costing at some $7,159.00.

TENANTS CASE

The tenants seek their full bond back, and state that this was a tenancy of four years duration. The only dispute at this time is the curtain cleaning claim.
The tenants note that the landlord has only provided photographs showing 6 curtains not all of the curtains for which dry cleaning has been claimed.
The tenants say that no inspection report was provided, despite them having requested this. The tenants consider that the photographs were taken during inspections.
The tenants further state that the inspection reports were amended after they moved out.
The only time mould was raised during inspections was on 14 August 2024, where the landlord requested the tenants use a mould spray, which they did. The tenants consider that what is shown in the curtains is consistent with normal wear and tear, particularly considering that in Wellington is a moister environment.
Overall, the tenants state that they kept the curtains dry and ventilated during the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

ANALYSIS

The primary question in this case, is whether the tenants are liable to pay for the dry cleaning costs incurred by the landlord, to clean the curtains.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
In this case, the landlord has provided a range of photographs, showing what is plainly mould on the backing of the curtains. I accept that the landlord has not provided photographs of every curtain, but to the balance of probabilities I am satisfied they are likely to be representative of the curtains in general. Claims in the Tenancy Tribunal are determined on the balance of probability, and I am satisfied that standard has been met. I am satisfied that the mould on the curtains does not support that the premises (curtains) were returned in a reasonably clean state.
While mould is a well-recognised issue for staining curtains, taking into consideration the extent of the staining, I find that is beyond what would be accepted, as normal wear and tear as a defence to the landlord’s claim.
The question then becomes, whether the tenants are liable for the amount claimed by the landlord, and I am satisfied that they are.
I accept that the amount claimed, is the cost actually incurred by the landlord, as supported by the contractors invoice. The cost included not only the dry cleaning, but the cost to remove and rehang the curtains at the end of the process. That was all done by the one contractor.
I am not of the view that the amount claimed is manifestly excessive. The claim relates to multiple curtains and blinds.
I have also cross checked the amount claimed, $1,585.00, against the value of the curtains. If for example, the value of the curtains was well below that figure, then it would not be reasonable that the tenants are liable for the cleaning cost. In this case, the cost to purchase the curtains was $7,159.00. If I refer to the Inland Revenue depreciation guides (IR265), those guides consider that curtains at a residential tenancy would have a useful economic life of eight years. Here the curtains are about halfway through that lifespan, and taking a straight line approach to the depreciation, the cost to have the curtains cleaned, would be less than the curtain value.
For those reasons, I conclude that the tenants are liable for the curtain cleaning cost. The curtains were not returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and the landlord was therefore entitled to have the curtains commercially cleaned, and to claim that amount from the bond.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has been wholly successful, and has requested named suppression. Therefore, landlord name suppression is ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the landlords have been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5495729 — net $1,613.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Curtain and drape cleaning	$1,585.00	Curtain and drape cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,613.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,613.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,613.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $0.00 [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $0.00 DescriptionLandlord Curtain and drape cleaning$1,585.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$1,613.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,613.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant. The tenancy has ended, and while there were a range of issues, most have been resolved by the parties directly. The only remaining issue relates to liability for cleaning of the curtains at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s position is that they were mould-stained, whereas the tenants’ position is that they reflect what would be fair wear and tear, in a four-year tenancy.
The hearing was convened in Wellington today. The tenants appeared in person, the landlord is no longer based in Wellington, so has provided a written submission which I have taken into consideration.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 28 th of February 2022. Over the course of time, the composition of the tenants changed. The original rental for the property was $1,650. The tenancy agreement records that there were new curtains at the start of the Tenancy.
An invoice has been provided for the supply and installation of curtains, drapes and roman blinds, which include hardware like tracks, the invoice totals $7,159.22.
The tenancy ended on 20 February 2026.
The landlord has provided an invoice from Fabricare/Floorcare Limited for removing, cleaning, and re-hanging 11 curtains and five Roman blinds, to the sum of $1,585.00.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord has presented their case in writing.
The landlord considers that the tenants have not kept the property reasonably clean, which has led to contamination of the curtains with mould.
The landlord’s position is that the property is a dry dwelling, and that the tenants would be responsible for properly ventilating the house as needed.
In response to the tenants having raised the dryer being non-vented, and therefore releasing moisture into the property, the landlord responded that the dryer was the tenants property, not the landlords.
The landlord submits that the tenants have not provided proof that they would ventilate the property every day, as they suggested occurred.
The landlord’s position is that evidence could be provided if required that all curtains were mouldy, and that the curtains were new at the start of the tenancy costing at some $7,159.00.

TENANTS CASE

The tenants seek their full bond back, and state that this was a tenancy of four years duration. The only dispute at this time is the curtain cleaning claim.
The tenants note that the landlord has only provided photographs showing 6 curtains not all of the curtains for which dry cleaning has been claimed.
The tenants say that no inspection report was provided, despite them having requested this. The tenants consider that the photographs were taken during inspections.
The tenants further state that the inspection reports were amended after they moved out.
The only time mould was raised during inspections was on 14 August 2024, where the landlord requested the tenants use a mould spray, which they did. The tenants consider that what is shown in the curtains is consistent with normal wear and tear, particularly considering that in Wellington is a moister environment.
Overall, the tenants state that they kept the curtains dry and ventilated during the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

ANALYSIS

The primary question in this case, is whether the tenants are liable to pay for the dry cleaning costs incurred by the landlord, to clean the curtains.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided/returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
In this case, the landlord has provided a range of photographs, showing what is plainly mould on the backing of the curtains. I accept that the landlord has not provided photographs of every curtain, but to the balance of probabilities I am satisfied they are likely to be representative of the curtains in general. Claims in the Tenancy Tribunal are determined on the balance of probability, and I am satisfied that standard has been met. I am satisfied that the mould on the curtains does not support that the premises (curtains) were returned in a reasonably clean state.
While mould is a well-recognised issue for staining curtains, taking into consideration the extent of the staining, I find that is beyond what would be accepted, as normal wear and tear as a defence to the landlord’s claim.
The question then becomes, whether the tenants are liable for the amount claimed by the landlord, and I am satisfied that they are.
I accept that the amount claimed, is the cost actually incurred by the landlord, as supported by the contractors invoice. The cost included not only the dry cleaning, but the cost to remove and rehang the curtains at the end of the process. That was all done by the one contractor.
I am not of the view that the amount claimed is manifestly excessive. The claim relates to multiple curtains and blinds.
I have also cross checked the amount claimed, $1,585.00, against the value of the curtains. If for example, the value of the curtains was well below that figure, then it would not be reasonable that the tenants are liable for the cleaning cost. In this case, the cost to purchase the curtains was $7,159.00. If I refer to the Inland Revenue depreciation guides (IR265), those guides consider that curtains at a residential tenancy would have a useful economic life of eight years. Here the curtains are about halfway through that lifespan, and taking a straight line approach to the depreciation, the cost to have the curtains cleaned, would be less than the curtain value.
For those reasons, I conclude that the tenants are liable for the curtain cleaning cost. The curtains were not returned to the landlord at the end of the tenancy in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and the landlord was therefore entitled to have the curtains commercially cleaned, and to claim that amount from the bond.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has been wholly successful, and has requested named suppression. Therefore, landlord name suppression is ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the landlords have been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495729 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495729 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions