What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5144730?

The tribunal order states: Katherine Gradwell to pay The Lemmas Family Trust (Trustees: Melanie

How much money was awarded in case 5144730?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Ceramic Cooktop: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Removal From Flooring: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: 4 X Stools: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5144730?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5144730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12011825-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5144730?

The tribunal order states: Katherine Gradwell to pay The Lemmas Family Trust (Trustees: Melanie

How much money was awarded in case 5144730?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Ceramic Cooktop: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Paint Removal From Flooring: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: 4 X Stools: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5144730?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5144730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12011825-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 403, 10 Exmouth Street, Eden Terrace, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5144730 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5144730 — net $950.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: oven, table, tiles	$500.00	Cleaning: oven, table, tiles
Repairs: ceramic cooktop	$200.00	Repairs: ceramic cooktop
Replace furnishings: 4 x Stools	$150.00	Replace furnishings: 4 x Stools
Repairs: paint removal from flooring	$100.00	Repairs: paint removal from flooring
Net award	$950.00
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$950.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5144730 — net $950.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: oven, table, tiles	$500.00	Cleaning: oven, table, tiles
Repairs: ceramic cooktop	$200.00	Repairs: ceramic cooktop
Replace furnishings: 4 x Stools	$150.00	Replace furnishings: 4 x Stools
Repairs: paint removal from flooring	$100.00	Repairs: paint removal from flooring
Net award	$950.00
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$950.00

Order

Katherine Gradwell to pay The Lemmas Family Trust (Trustees: Melanie Shuttleworth, Samuel Francis Shuttleworth) $950.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (6230192-015) immediately apportioned as follows: The Lemmas Family Trust (Trustees: Melanie Shuttleworth, Samuel Francis Shuttleworth): $950.00 Katherine Gradwell: $2,450.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. The landlord was represented by Mel Shuttleworth and Sam Shuttleworth.
This is a cross application.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied to get her bond back.
The tenancy agreement, with The Lemmas Family Trust as the landlord and Katherine Gradwell as the tenant, was signed by an agent for the landlord on 20 March 2023 and by the tenant on 22 March 2023. The tenancy ended on 5 December 2024, meaning the tenancy lasted a little longer than 18 months.
The landlord’s application consists of claims for general cleaning, cleaning rust marks from marble tiles and glue from a table, melted rubber and burn marks on the flooring, and damage to roller-blinds, a ceramic cooktop and four bar stools.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
Pre-tenancy photographs have not been provided as part of the application. End-of-tenancy photographs showing specific defects have been provided. These are helpful only up to a point.
I consider “reasonably clean and tidy” to refer to the overall condition of the premises. It is self-evident that particular areas of dirt will not of themselves be reasonably clean and tidy. However, an overall reasonably clean and tidy premises will include specific defects. The bathroom tiles
The landlord claims the tenant left the tiles in the shower with rust marks that needed professional treatment. An invoice dated 21 February 2025 for $316.25 from Lustre for cleaning the rust marks was provided by the landlord. The landlord stated this is the minimum callout fee for the company.
The tenant stated that the rust marks were the result of the bathroom caddy that was present in the premises at the beginning of the tenancy. She stated that throughout her tenancy the caddy caused rust marks, and she was able to clean them with standard cleaning products.
The landlord stated that there was no bathroom caddy provided with the premises.
This was one of several points that the tenant and the landlord disagreed on, and which it is not possible that the difference is simply a matter of interpretation or opinion. The onus is on the landlord to prove their claims to the civil standard of on the balance of probabilities.
It is usual for landlords to support their claims with pre-tenancy as well as end- of-tenancy photographs. In this application, the landlord has not provided a set of pre-tenancy photos which for this claim would likely have resolved the issue without argument.
The landlord stated that the previous tenancy was with two men, and they would have had no use for a bathroom-caddy. With respect, this is an opinion presented as fact; there is no reason why men would have no use for a bathroom caddy. I do not find this submission persuasive.
In providing her information Ms Gradwell from time to time made concessions to her detriment such as accepting that she was still cleaning after the end date of the tenancy, and that she didn’t clean the oven at all, or complete a final clean to the standard that she would have liked. I found her to be a credible person, and given she was the person living at the premises, and I prefer her information over Mrs Shuttleworth’s with regard to the presence of a bathroom caddy and whether it was hers or had been there at the beginning of the tenancy.
There is no dispute that there were rust marks on the tiles. Ms Gradwell stated that they had kept occurring during the tenancy and she had cleaned them. She stated she had not had time to clean them at the end of the tenancy, but she believes she could have. I accept that leaving the rust marks on the tiles means the bathroom was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
This claim is proved. I make a partial award as discussed below. Glue marks on the table
The landlord claims there were seven glue marks on the table at the end of the tenancy. The largest was approximately two and a half inches long, and the others were dots. The landlord provided a photograph of the table which shows a large smear mark and a second dot.
The tenant said she was only aware of one dot.
The photographs support the landlord’s version on this matter.
The landlord states that she had to get “Lustre” back to clean the glue from the table. A second invoice for $316.25, another minimum call-out fee, dated 17 February 2025 was produced in support of this claim.
I consider that the marks on the table effectively negate premises being left reasonably clean and tidy, and the landlord should be compensated.
I do not consider it reasonable to claim separate minimum call-out fees for each and every cleaning defect. I note that each of the invoices is dated more than three months after the end of the tenancy but only a few days apart from the other. I consider it would have been prudent to have both matters addressed at the same time, and no reason was presented as to why this didn’t happen. I order compensation for one but not both of the invoices. Cleaning
The landlord is claiming $406.42 for general cleaning, including the oven. Photographs of the oven at the end of the tenancy were produced which show the oven not to be at all clean. The tenant accepts this.
The landlord stated that the condition of the rest of the premises was disgusting. A photo showing the blackened sole of a foot was produced in support of the landlord’s claim that the floors had not been mopped.
Ms Gradwell accepts that she didn’t leave the premises as clean as she would have liked, but stated that the premises were not disgusting. She stated that she cleaned regularly and cleaned the toilets daily, and that she did undertake some cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
Again, the lack of photographs showing the floors, kitchen, bathrooms, and bedrooms mean that I must make a finding based on the oral evidence presented. On balance I am not persuaded that the premises other than the specific areas photographed were not reasonably clean and tidy. This is partly because the landlord has provided photographs of unsatisfactory areas. I accept that further cleaning was needed at the end of the tenancy, but this is not unusual. Landlords often conduct end-of-tenancy cleans over and above the reasonably clean and tidy standard that premises are returned in at the end of a tenancy. I make an award for some extra cleaning which includes the oven.
The amounts for removing the glue from the table, removing the rust from the shower tiles and cleaning the oven are combined.
The amount ordered is proved.

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. 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. The roller blinds
The landlord has submitted a claim of $1,597.12 for replacing four sets of blinds from the two bedrooms. The landlord states that these were damaged by condensation causing mould due to the tenant not ventilating the bedrooms adequately. There was also fraying on the sides of the blinds.
The landlord states that the blinds were new when the building was new, and so were seven years old at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant agrees that there was a lot of condensation in the bedrooms, but states this was not due to her not ventilating the rooms adequately. She stated that each morning there was considerable condensation on the windows and each morning she would wipe them and the blinds down. She also stated that she didn’t recall mould damage on the blinds in the second bedroom although she accepts these blinds were frayed.
The Inland Revenue Department’s Depreciation Schedule lists residential blinds as having an expected life of eight years. This means the blinds in question were nearing the end of their expected life.
I am not persuaded that the condensation in the rooms was caused by Ms Gradwell’s careless acts. I also accept Ms Gradwell’s information that she was aware of the condensation and took steps to reduce it. I am not surprised that despite this there was some mould on the blinds. Ms Gradwell stated that the frayed edges had occurred gradually over the tenancy. Again I find this plausible given the age of the blinds.
I find no reason to doubt the truthfulness of Ms Gradwell’s information in respect of the blinds. On this basis I am not persuaded that the damage to the blinds exceeds fair wear and tear. But even if I am wrong on this point, I am satisfied that Ms Gradwell has not acted carelessly towards them.
This claim is not proved. The cooktop
The landlord is claiming $1,999.00 to replace the SMEG cooktop due to a small chip which I estimate to be the size of a small fingernail. The landlord states the display glitches and she has been advised that this is caused by the chip affecting the integrity of the unit.
The tenant accepts that she probably caused the chip, but denies the chip affected the display when she used the cooktop. She stated that the cooktop “worked perfectly” when the tenancy ended, although she stated that the cooktop did turn itself off when it was too hot.
Despite the landlord’s information that the chip has affected the integrity of the cooktop and it now malfunctions as a result, I am not convinced. I have not been given an explanation as to how a chip to the ceramic cooktop could affect the display. I do not believe the landlord’s information is reliable.
Nonetheless I accept the landlord has suffered a loss as a result of the chip, and the landlord should be compensated for this loss. I make an award of $200.00 as compensation. The bar stools
The landlord is claiming $380.00 for four stools that she provided during the tenancy to the tenant. The landlord says the stools were second-hand but in great condition when she gave them to the tenant. The landlord claims that stools have been damaged by rust as a result of being used outside.
The tenant does not dispute this. She states that she had believed the stools were a gift, as they were never included on the chattel list, and they were hers to do with what she wanted.
The tenant accepts the stools have suffered damage, and she says she intended to repair them herself by sanding off the rust. However she ran out of time at the end of the tenancy.
I determine the stools have suffered damage as a result of the tenant’s careless use.
The landlord says her claim is based on an estimate that the stools are worth about $200.00 each when new.
The tenant stated that there are similar stools available for $28.98 each from Bunnings Warehouse.
There is no documentary information at all, before me regarding the value of the stools. Nor is there any reliable information as to the make or value of the stools when new or secondhand. They are now several years old. I consider the value of such furniture to be limited when second hand, and I make an award of $150.00 for the four stools. The flooring
The landlord is claiming $2000.00 for damage to the flooring. The landlord says there are approximately 40 burn marks and areas where rubber has melted into floor. The landlord produced photographs from the end of the tenancy, and raised that the tenant’s boyfriend had been caught smoking inside the premises.
The flooring has a timber-grain finish and has a weathered, bleached appearance. The photographs show some grey black marks in the flooring.
The tenant seemed bemused by the claim and denies damaging the floor. The tenant stated that she thought the marks the landlord was referring to were part of the pattern of the flooring. She stated that she did not damage the floor, and she doesn’t think the floor is damaged.
I agree that at least some of the marks appear to be part of the pattern of the flooring.
In light of the tenant’s denial of causing damage, I find, the photographs from the end of the tenancy to be inconclusive. The flooring colour is grey, and black, and not being natural, the photographs do not clearly show the marks to be burn marks or even damage. I do not give any weight to the tenant’s concession that her boyfriend was caught smoking inside, as smoking is not an activity that commonly damages floors.
Once again, the landlord’s claim suffers for not including pre-tenancy photographs. Given the tenant contests that there is damage, and I cannot clearly see what exactly the damage is, and the tenant says that if it is damage she did not cause it, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has carelessly caused damage to the floor.
This claim is not proved.
For the successful claims I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I consider each party has been somewhat successful with their claims. I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5144730 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 403, 10 Exmouth Street, Eden Terrace,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5144730 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Unit 403, 10 Exmouth Street, Eden Terrace,

At a glance

Award balance

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions