What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5497480 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property

How much money was awarded in case 5497480?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Contribution To Painting: $480.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5497480?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5497480?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14038122-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5497480 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property

How much money was awarded in case 5497480?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Contribution To Painting: $480.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5497480?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5497480?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14038122-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 8, 214 Campbell Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5497480 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5497480 — net $530.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: one blind	$50.00	Cleaning: one blind
Contribution to painting	$480.00	Contribution to painting
Net award	$530.00
Bond	$1,725.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$530.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5497480 — net $530.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: one blind	$50.00	Cleaning: one blind
Contribution to painting	$480.00	Contribution to painting
Net award	$530.00
Bond	$1,725.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$530.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited $530.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $1,725.00 (BN-17107932) immediately apportioned as follows: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited: $530.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,195.00

Reasons

The landlords’ representatives (D and L) and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] (for both tenants) attended the hearing.
This is a dispute about claims the landlord has made against the tenants’ bond.
This tenancy started in August 2022 and ended on 3 April 2026.
The parties agreed to some issues at mediation and the bond has been partially refunded ($70.63 to the landlords and $804.37 to the tenants). The balance of the bond is $1,725.00.
The landlords claim compensation for:- a. extra cleaning - $345.00 (one blind, and bedrooms and hallway ceilings and walls); and b. painting (of the living room and kitchen, ceiling and walls) - $1,380.00.
The tenants disagree with most claims. They agree that one roller blind needed cleaning. They seek a full refund of the rest of the bond.
The tenants raised some other issues in their evidence to do with mould, rats/mice, and electrical issues. I have not addressed these because they were not part of the tenants’ claim and were not discussed in the hearing.
The essence of this dispute is that the landlord says that cleaning and painting work was needed to remedy a “smoky”, dark-coloured residue left on most walls and ceilings in the house at the end of the tenancy. Their opinion is that the tenants must have burned a lot of candles or incense inside the house over the tenancy.
The tenants do not deny that black residue was visible in places, 1 but did not say what might have caused it. They say they were asked to return to the house to do more cleaning after the first exit inspection and that they did this. They were then told everything was satisfactory.
They think it is unfair that the landlord now makes these claims. They say that if the landlord had told them there was still a problem, they would have done more cleaning which would not have cost them anything except their time. They do not agree that the black residue is “damage” or that repainting was necessary. 1 VS acknowledged this in the hearing.

What is the law that applies?

The bond is tenant money unless a landlord proves they have a valid claim based on a tenant’s breach of their obligations; section 22B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
At the end of a tenancy, a tenant must leave the premises “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy”, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all landlord chattels; section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
“Reasonably clean” is not defined in the RTA. It does not mean spotless or pristine, or necessarily returned to the same standard it was presented in.
To be successful in a claim alleging damage, a landlord must first prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear; s49B(8)(a) RTA.
If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage; s40(2)(a) and 49B(8)(b) RTA.
"Fair wear and tear” is anything that would happen as an ordinary part of living in the property in a fair and reasonable way.
If damage is proven, the Tribunal aims to award compensation which will, as near as possible, return the landlord to the position they would have been in if there had not been careless or intentional damage. The landlord should not be better or worse off. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the damaged items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
In the case of careless damage, the most a tenant is liable for is the amount of the insurance excess or four weeks' market rent (whichever is less). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Tenancy Tribunal claims are decided according to the normal civil standard of proof which is “on the balance of probabilities”. I do not need to be certain that what is claimed is the case, but I must be satisfied that it is more probable than not. Were the premises “reasonably clean” after the extra cleaning that the landlords allowed the tenants to come back and do (on 8 and 9 April)?
It is a tenant’s obligation to return premises “reasonably clean” at the end of the tenancy.
A landlord does not have to allow a tenant a second chance to come back and clean or remedy damage. Many landlords do choose to give tenants this opportunity as it can reduce costs for both parties and be quicker than engaging a professional cleaner.
In this case, the landlords did allow the tenants to return after the first exit inspection and do extra cleaning. VS says he remedied everything he was asked to, including cleaning smoky residue from walls in the kitchen.
My summary of the photo evidence provided is:- a. The photos from the first inspection (on 7 April 2026) do not focus on the walls or ceilings. I cannot see dark residue. They are more concerned with other cleaning issues. b. I was not given photos from the landlords’ second inspection (10 April 2026) after the tenants’ extra cleaning. c. The tenants provided “before and after” photos relating to their extra cleaning. These include photos of kitchen and lounge walls and do not show smoky residue. d. The photos from the landlords’ third inspection (23 April 2026) show obvious dark-coloured smears on the lounge and kitchen ceilings. There are places on some kitchen and lounge walls that also look “smeary”.
My decision is that the landlords have not proven that the bedrooms and hallway were not reasonably clean after the tenants extra cleaning. Quite simply, this is because they did not supply photos of these rooms from either the second or third inspection.
The photos from the landlords’ third inspection satisfy me that the lounge and kitchen ceilings, and some walls in both rooms were not reasonably clean. There are visible dark-coloured smears. If, after their extra cleaning, the landlord initially told the tenants the house was satisfactory, can the landlord later change its mind and say that it is not?
The landlord (D) sent VS a text on 10 April 2026, after the second inspection, which said, “all looks good”. 2
A week later, D sent another text saying that L had now inspected the house and that “the walls in the lounge are still dirty and need to be cleaned. It is smoke from burning something that is on the walls, this usually comes from incense or cooking.”
The landlords told VS that they had arranged cleaners to do the remaining cleaning for $345.00 and would refund the rest of the bond to the tenants. 2 Except the curtains and blind. The landlord has not claimed compensation relating to the curtains and the tenant accepts the blind was still not clean.
Both parties then made their applications to the Tribunal. VS says the landlord only disclosed the painting claim just before the mediation conference on 19 May 2026.
The landlords’ agent accepts they made a mistake when texting on 10 April to say the cleanliness of the house was now good. Their explanation is that as D had taken over managing the tenancy part-way through, and the residue accumulated gradually and evenly, he did not notice it when doing the first and second exit inspections. They also say this is a dark house (it is a lower floor flat and the upstairs deck overhangs the front windows).
L said when she checked the property after D’s second inspection, including removing the curtains, she noticed the residue problem as there was a contrast between the paint under where curtains had been. She said she could also see wipe marks. She wondered if the residue was initially evenly spread over the walls and ceilings, mainly in the lounge and kitchen, but that once cleaning was attempted, the residue became smeared and more obvious.
I accept that it was frustrating for VS that the landlords changed their view as to whether the house was reasonably clean.
However, this was an unusual problem. It was only after some cleaning that the residue became smeared. Most cleaning jobs start at their worst and then improve. In this case, the residue was initially more even and less obvious. Cleaning made it smear and look worse. It was only after more cleaning that it then improved.
My decision is that the landlords have proved, and the tenants accept, there was residue from something on walls and ceilings that was not there at the start of this tenancy. This means the tenants are responsible for removing it. The fact that this turned into a difficult job which got worse before it got better does not change this.
The landlords allowed the tenants to return to do some extra cleaning but had no legal obligation to continue to do so. If the bond was still at the Bond Centre, it was available for this claim. And that is what happened.
My decision is that the landlord could change its mind and had no obligation to allow the tenants to come back and try to clean or remove the residue a second time.

Is the cleaning invoice payable by the tenants?

The cleaning invoice does not detail the work done but I accept the landlords’ evidence that the $345.00 covered cleaning of residue from the walls and ceilings in the hallway and bedrooms, and the cleaning of one roller blind.
I award $50.00 as an estimate of the cost to clean the roller blind (which VS accepts needed further cleaning).
I dismiss the rest of this claim because (as I decided above at paragraph 24), the landlord did not provide photos to show the bedrooms and hallway were not reasonably clean after the tenants had done the extra cleaning.

Is the painting invoice payable by the tenants?

I have decided (at paragraph 25) that the kitchen and lounge ceilings, and some walls in both rooms were not reasonably clean after the tenants did the extra cleaning.
The issue is whether it was necessary or reasonable for the landlords to have these rooms repainted instead of cleaned.
L told me the rooms were painted because the professional cleaners recommended that this would be cheaper and produce a better result. They had quoted $345.00 to clean all walls and ceilings in the house, and the roller blind, but revised this while doing the work saying it was proving more time- consuming and difficult than anticipated. L said they estimated it would take 20 to 30 hours of cleaning for these two rooms alone.
L explained she then asked the painter to check the situation as she wondered if it was the quality of the paint. She says the painter said it was a kind of smoke.
The landlord did not present direct witness evidence from the cleaners or the painter. L told me what she remembers them saying to her. The Tribunal can accept this type of second-hand evidence, but I must be careful as it is not as reliable as hearing from the people who did the work.
VS rejects the need for painting. He says he was able to clean the residue from the kitchen walls which shows it was possible to do.
My decision is that the landlord has not proved the kitchen and lounge ceilings and walls were “damaged” or that repainting was required. I agree that the tenants’ “before and after” photos show VS cleaned most walls in the kitchen satisfactorily.
I do not have direct evidence from the cleaners of what it may have cost them to remove the residue (for example, a written estimate of the work required to clean the kitchen and lounge).
I accept L’s oral evidence that the residue was slightly sticky, and I can see from the photos it is smeared. If it is smoke from candles or incense, this makes sense. My assessment is that cleaning would not have been quick or easy.
If cleaning would have taken 12 hours (eg 2 cleaners for 6 hours) at $40.00 per hour, then this would cost $480.00. If it took 20 hours, this is $800.00. If 30 hours, then $1,200.00.
I can understand why the landlords decided it might be better to paint. This cost $1,200.00 plus gst.
My decision is that the fairest thing to do is to award the landlords a contribution based on my estimate of the cost to clean the kitchen and lounge ceilings, and some of the walls. VS had already cleaned some of the kitchen walls. I estimate this at 12 hours of work and award $480.00.
I note that the landlord now has a freshly painted kitchen and lounge and that repainting of the interior of high-use areas in tenancy premises may well be required about every 5 to 6 years. 3 A kitchen is subject to more wear and tear because of cooking and steam. Arguably, repainting was due in a year or two. Filing fees and suppression of names
Neither party has been wholly successful, so I make no award about the filing fees.
The Tribunal must usually grant suppression of the name of a party that has been “wholly or substantially successful” but also considers the public interest and conduct of the parties; section 95A RTA.
Both parties have been partly successful but neither has been substantially successful. I accept that both landlords and tenants acted in good faith however I consider the public interest favours publication. There was residue on interior surfaces and the agents could have managed the exit process better. I make no suppression orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5497480 — Cleanliness at Unit 8, 214 Campbell Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5497480 — Cleanliness at Unit 8, 214 Campbell Road, Greenlane, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the law that applies?

Is the cleaning invoice payable by the tenants?

Is the painting invoice payable by the tenants?

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

Order

Reasons

What is the law that applies?

Is the cleaning invoice payable by the tenants?

Is the painting invoice payable by the tenants?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.