What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5205431?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5367019-001) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5205431?

Cleaning: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $793.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205431?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12085250-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5205431?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5367019-001) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5205431?

Cleaning: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $793.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205431?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12085250-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

136 Fielding Road, Drury, RD 1, Drury 2577 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5205431 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5205431. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$632.50	Cleaning
Repairs to door, door handles, bulb replacement	$793.25	Repairs to door, door handles, bulb replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Both parties attended the hearing yesterday, 8 July 2025.

The landlord has applied for cleaning, repair costs, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The application relates to a residential tenancy which commenced on 7 October 2017 and ended on 7 February 2025 – a tenancy of over 7 years. The property was probably built in the 1980’s. Cleaning

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. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs (Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).

The tenant accepted that some of the lightbulbs needed replacing. The tenant disputed the cleaning costs, submitting that the landlord’s photographs had been taken in a way which made it look like the property had been left in poor condition. The tenant emphasised that they had regularly cleaned, and cleaned again before they moved out. The tenant said the age of the premises meant it was difficult to maintain.

The landlord said their photographs showed that the property was not reasonably clean. While the walls were wallpapered, with regular cleaning they could be maintained. The landlord pointed to the need for cleaning inside cupboards and said the property was not in a lettable condition.

The tenant was required to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition. The standard a landlord expects before reletting may be higher than this legal requirement but does not change it. Tenants are not expected to keep premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. Section 40 of the Act does not impose an absolute standard. The required standard of cleanliness varies according to the age and condition of the premises (Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759).

The age of the premises is a relevant factor here, as is the length of the tenancy. The original wallpaper covers the walls and, in my view, would have been harder to clean than painted walls. I consider that at least some of the mould or dirt on the walls can be explained on this basis. The landlord’s photographs show a need for cleaning to the tiled flooring in the laundry, kitchen, bathroom, and hallway. The photographs focus on specific areas, such as corners, and it is not clear that the entirety of the flooring was affected. The kitchen and ensuite cupboards were not reasonably clean. Several internal doors were dirty and there were cobwebs in the corner of a window. There was some debris on the concrete floor in the garage.

The tenant’s photographs are taken from a wider, less close perspective and show a property that was reasonably clean and tidy overall. The premises were not left in a terrible state, indeed the kitchen was clean and the gardens neatly maintained. However, in the areas identified and based on the landlord’s photographs, I find that the premises did not meet the required standard. I award $632.50 for cleaning (50% of the amount claimed) as a reasonable contribution to the cleaning cost. Repairs

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.

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. The insurance excess was $1,000.00 to be applied towards each item of damage, so that an insurance claim was uneconomical.

There was damage to an internal door, door handles were missing on several wardrobes, about 10 lightbulbs needed replacing, and there was some rubbish in the laundry and garage.

The tenant said the wardrobe door handles fell off and they put them in a cupboard. The tenant had an obligation to report damage to the landlord (section 40(1)(d) of the Act). Doing so can protect tenants from liability for damage that is, more realistically, the result of a maintenance issue. That inference is not available here because it does not seem the issues were notified. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Filing Fee

The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5205431. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$632.50	Cleaning
Repairs to door, door handles, bulb replacement	$793.25	Repairs to door, door handles, bulb replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (5367019-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Reforma P.M. Limited as Agent for Garry Trevor Robertson: $1,452.75 Antony Paul Comley and Ella Johann Comley: $747.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing yesterday, 8 July 2025.
The landlord has applied for cleaning, repair costs, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application relates to a residential tenancy which commenced on 7 October 2017 and ended on 7 February 2025 – a tenancy of over 7 years. The property was probably built in the 1980’s. Cleaning
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. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs (Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
The tenant accepted that some of the lightbulbs needed replacing. The tenant disputed the cleaning costs, submitting that the landlord’s photographs had been taken in a way which made it look like the property had been left in poor condition. The tenant emphasised that they had regularly cleaned, and cleaned again before they moved out. The tenant said the age of the premises meant it was difficult to maintain.
The landlord said their photographs showed that the property was not reasonably clean. While the walls were wallpapered, with regular cleaning they could be maintained. The landlord pointed to the need for cleaning inside cupboards and said the property was not in a lettable condition.
The tenant was required to leave the property in a reasonably clean condition. The standard a landlord expects before reletting may be higher than this legal requirement but does not change it. Tenants are not expected to keep premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy. Section 40 of the Act does not impose an absolute standard. The required standard of cleanliness varies according to the age and condition of the premises (Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759).
The age of the premises is a relevant factor here, as is the length of the tenancy. The original wallpaper covers the walls and, in my view, would have been harder to clean than painted walls. I consider that at least some of the mould or dirt on the walls can be explained on this basis. The landlord’s photographs show a need for cleaning to the tiled flooring in the laundry, kitchen, bathroom, and hallway. The photographs focus on specific areas, such as corners, and it is not clear that the entirety of the flooring was affected. The kitchen and ensuite cupboards were not reasonably clean. Several internal doors were dirty and there were cobwebs in the corner of a window. There was some debris on the concrete floor in the garage.
The tenant’s photographs are taken from a wider, less close perspective and show a property that was reasonably clean and tidy overall. The premises were not left in a terrible state, indeed the kitchen was clean and the gardens neatly maintained. However, in the areas identified and based on the landlord’s photographs, I find that the premises did not meet the required standard. I award $632.50 for cleaning (50% of the amount claimed) as a reasonable contribution to the cleaning cost. Repairs
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.
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. The insurance excess was $1,000.00 to be applied towards each item of damage, so that an insurance claim was uneconomical.
There was damage to an internal door, door handles were missing on several wardrobes, about 10 lightbulbs needed replacing, and there was some rubbish in the laundry and garage.
The tenant said the wardrobe door handles fell off and they put them in a cupboard. The tenant had an obligation to report damage to the landlord (section 40(1)(d) of the Act). Doing so can protect tenants from liability for damage that is, more realistically, the result of a maintenance issue. That inference is not available here because it does not seem the issues were notified. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Filing Fee
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205431 — Property damage at 136 Fielding Road, Drury, RD 1, Drury 2577

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205431 — Property damage at 136 Fielding Road, Drury, RD 1, Drury 2577

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions