How much money was awarded in case 5501651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5501651?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5501651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13581330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5501651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5501651?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5501651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13581330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5501651 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5501651 about?

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

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $555.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claims are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 11 May 2026.
This tenancy of a 3-bedroom one bathroom family home began on the 14 September 2024 and ended on the 23 February 2026 after the tenants gave notice to leave.
Soon after the end of the tenancy the landlord reroofed the property.
The tenants sought the return of the bond. The landlord filed a claim against the bond, they claim: a. Cleaning costs of $70.00 b. Replacement heat pump remote – claimed at $25.00 the landlord told me at the hearing that they are now seeking $75.00 for this cost. c. Repair costs to the bathroom vanity top drawer of $287.50 d. Repair costs to the kitchen bench of $172.50. e. The filing fee.
The tenants dispute liability for the damage and the costs claimed. They say that on the final day of the tenancy they did a final inspection of the property with the property manager and that she asked them to clean dust out a couple of drawers, which they attended to immediately. They say no other issues were raised about the state of the property.
The tenants say four days later they received an email from the property manager saying the landlord was dissatisfied with the level of cleaning and asking the tenants to go and do further cleaning, the tenants say that they were unsure what the landlord wanted them to do, they asked for further details but say that they did not get any reply. They did not go back to the property.
The tenants say that any damage to the property claimed by the landlord was either fair wear and tear or preexisting.

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

Tenants must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and remove all rubbish. 1
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 2 , not commercially clean 3 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 4
What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-085-1441,17 December 2008.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean, and in particular the oven, rangehood, bathroom tiles and some other areas needed additional cleaning. 1 Section 40(1)(e) RTA 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 4 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.
Both parties provided me with photographs taken of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided the tribunal with the pre tenancy inspection report.
Having considered all of the evidence I am satisfied that the tenants left the property reasonably clean and tidy I say this because: • The photographs show the whole of the property which appears to be left reasonably clean and tidy. • The areas complained about are small, and it is difficult to ascertain if items such as the rangehood are dirty or discoloured. The rangehood appears to look the same condition as photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. • The landlord’s agent did not raise concerns about the cleaning with the tenants at the final inspection. I do not accept that a landlord should have to have an in-depth look at the property to identify areas that are not reasonably clean. If an area does not meet the standard, I expect it is easily identifiable in a final inspection. • The landlord was having significant building work at the property, I do not understand why it would be necessary to complete cleaning to a high standard when building work that would require cleaning afterwards was about to start. • The cleaning of the property only occurred 4 weeks after the tenancy ended, after the building work had been done. Any mould or spiderwebs could have occurred during that month. • Landlords should expect that they may have to undertake additional cleaning after a tenancy to make the property attractive to potential tenants.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning is not proven and therefore dismissed.

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.
Fair wear and tear is the gradual decline in the property due to everyday ordinary and reasonable use. Heat pump remote.
The landlord say that the tenant damaged the screen on the remote. The tenants dispute this.
The heat pump remote still works. It is not known when or how the remote screen was damaged. There are no photographs of the heat pump remote in the ingoing inspection so I cannot say if the screen was already damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that it is likely that the tenants damaged the heat pump. I do not know when or how the problem on the heat pump screen occurred. Kitchen bench
The landlord claims that there is a chip in the kitchen bench. In the ingoing inspection report (photo 140) you can clearly see that the bench is already chipped. As the damage was preexisting at the beginning of the tenancy, then the tenants are not liable. Bathroom vanity.
At the beginning of the tenancy the drawers in the bathroom vanity show signs of cracking and flaking. It appears that this is caused by water damage.
At the end of the tenancy the damage is more pronounced. However, I do not consider that the tenants are liable for this damage as they have not done anything to cause the damage, rather the damage appears to be from the reasonable use of the drawers. Drawers in bathrooms should be able to withstand some level of moisture, as those are wet areas. I do not consider it reasonable for a family to try and use bathroom drawers in such a way that they are never exposed to water. I do not consider that this damage is careless or intentional and therefor the tenants are not liable for the damage.
The landlord has not proven its claims.
I have suppressed both parties’ names as requested. Although the landlord has not been successful, I consider that there is no interest in knowing the names of the landlord. The parties have enjoyed a good relationship during the tenancy and have worked together to try and resolve issues between them

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $555.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The landlord’s claims are not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 11 May 2026.

This tenancy of a 3-bedroom one bathroom family home began on the 14 September 2024 and ended on the 23 February 2026 after the tenants gave notice to leave.

Soon after the end of the tenancy the landlord reroofed the property.

The tenants sought the return of the bond. The landlord filed a claim against the bond, they claim: a. Cleaning costs of $70.00 b. Replacement heat pump remote – claimed at $25.00 the landlord told me at the hearing that they are now seeking $75.00 for this cost. c. Repair costs to the bathroom vanity top drawer of $287.50 d. Repair costs to the kitchen bench of $172.50. e. The filing fee.

The tenants dispute liability for the damage and the costs claimed. They say that on the final day of the tenancy they did a final inspection of the property with the property manager and that she asked them to clean dust out a couple of drawers, which they attended to immediately. They say no other issues were raised about the state of the property.

The tenants say four days later they received an email from the property manager saying the landlord was dissatisfied with the level of cleaning and asking the tenants to go and do further cleaning, the tenants say that they were unsure what the landlord wanted them to do, they asked for further details but say that they did not get any reply. They did not go back to the property.

The tenants say that any damage to the property claimed by the landlord was either fair wear and tear or preexisting.

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

Tenants must leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy and remove all rubbish. 1

Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 2 , not commercially clean 3 , spotless hotel or motel standard. 4

What is reasonably clean, and tidy is an “objective assessment to be made after consideration of all of the evidence” Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-085-1441,17 December 2008.

The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean, and in particular the oven, rangehood, bathroom tiles and some other areas needed additional cleaning. 1 Section 40(1)(e) RTA 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at 8. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. 4 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.

Both parties provided me with photographs taken of the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also provided the tribunal with the pre tenancy inspection report.

Having considered all of the evidence I am satisfied that the tenants left the property reasonably clean and tidy I say this because: • The photographs show the whole of the property which appears to be left reasonably clean and tidy. • The areas complained about are small, and it is difficult to ascertain if items such as the rangehood are dirty or discoloured. The rangehood appears to look the same condition as photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. • The landlord’s agent did not raise concerns about the cleaning with the tenants at the final inspection. I do not accept that a landlord should have to have an in-depth look at the property to identify areas that are not reasonably clean. If an area does not meet the standard, I expect it is easily identifiable in a final inspection. • The landlord was having significant building work at the property, I do not understand why it would be necessary to complete cleaning to a high standard when building work that would require cleaning afterwards was about to start. • The cleaning of the property only occurred 4 weeks after the tenancy ended, after the building work had been done. Any mould or spiderwebs could have occurred during that month. • Landlords should expect that they may have to undertake additional cleaning after a tenancy to make the property attractive to potential tenants.

The landlord’s claim for cleaning is not proven and therefore dismissed.

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.

Fair wear and tear is the gradual decline in the property due to everyday ordinary and reasonable use. Heat pump remote.

The landlord say that the tenant damaged the screen on the remote. The tenants dispute this.

The heat pump remote still works. It is not known when or how the remote screen was damaged. There are no photographs of the heat pump remote in the ingoing inspection so I cannot say if the screen was already damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.

I am not satisfied that it is likely that the tenants damaged the heat pump. I do not know when or how the problem on the heat pump screen occurred. Kitchen bench

The landlord claims that there is a chip in the kitchen bench. In the ingoing inspection report (photo 140) you can clearly see that the bench is already chipped. As the damage was preexisting at the beginning of the tenancy, then the tenants are not liable. Bathroom vanity.

At the beginning of the tenancy the drawers in the bathroom vanity show signs of cracking and flaking. It appears that this is caused by water damage.

At the end of the tenancy the damage is more pronounced. However, I do not consider that the tenants are liable for this damage as they have not done anything to cause the damage, rather the damage appears to be from the reasonable use of the drawers. Drawers in bathrooms should be able to withstand some level of moisture, as those are wet areas. I do not consider it reasonable for a family to try and use bathroom drawers in such a way that they are never exposed to water. I do not consider that this damage is careless or intentional and therefor the tenants are not liable for the damage.

The landlord has not proven its claims.

I have suppressed both parties’ names as requested. Although the landlord has not been successful, I consider that there is no interest in knowing the names of the landlord. The parties have enjoyed a good relationship during the tenancy and have worked together to try and resolve issues between them

Tenancy Tribunal case 5501651 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5501651 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions

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

Frequently asked questions