What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5303824?

The tribunal order states: Shona Piri must pay The Property Managers Limited $3,736.54 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5303824?

Cleaning: $962.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $395.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5227432 D…: $2,101.29 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinet: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303824?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12947308-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5303824?

The tribunal order states: Shona Piri must pay The Property Managers Limited $3,736.54 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5303824?

Cleaning: $962.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $395.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5227432 D…: $2,101.29 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinet: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303824?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12947308-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 43 Woodward Road, Mount Albert, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303824 — Cleanliness

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303824 — net $3,736.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5227432 dated 18/07/2025	$2,101.29	Previous order application 5227432 dated 18/07/2025
Cleaning: general	$395.00	4. The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave all the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Cleaning: drapes and carpet	$962.25	4. The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave all the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Repairs: kitchen cabinet	$250.00	Repairs: kitchen cabinet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,736.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,736.54

Shona Piri must pay The Property Managers Limited $3,736.54 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 5227432 dated 18/07/2025 $2,101.29 Cleaning: general$395.00 Cleaning: drapes and carpet$962.25 Repairs: kitchen cabinet$250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,736.54 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,736.54

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video and telephone.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave all the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant explained that she had recently undergone major surgery and was unable to complete the cleaning. The amount claimed is not for a full clean, just a limited clean of specific areas and is fair and reasonable based on invoices for similar work which the Tribunal regularly sees.

The landlord claimed that the premises had an overpowering smell of tobacco smoking residue. The landlord had issued the tenant with a 14-day notice requiring her to stop from smoking inside the premises. The tenant gave evidence that she only smoked outside the front door and did not smoke in the premises. She accepted that smoke could drift inside from the open front door where she smoked. She noted that for a period the premises were occupied by another person and that she may have smoked inside.

As discussed at the hearing, the tenant is responsible for the actions in the premises of anyone who she has allowed inside. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that it is more likely than not that the tenant through smoking in the doorway, or by her guest smoking, contaminated the premises with tobacco smoke that required the cleaning of the carpets and drapes. The removal of those odours was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The amounts ordered are proven.

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.

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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A large portion of a kitchen cabinet door had delaminated. b. There was one large blue stain on the carpet and two smaller stains.

The tenant denied responsibility for the cabinet damage and claimed that it was in that condition at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord provided photographic evidence from an inspection report at the start of the tenancy showing that the cabinet door had not delaminated.

An inspection report during the tenancy was unclear as to the state of the cabinet but showed a hot water jug situated on the edge of the bench above the cabinet door.

On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the cabinet was damaged during the tenancy and that the damage was caused carelessly. The tenant is therefore liable for the insurance excess of the landlord as shown in the tenancy agreement.

The landlord provided an estimate of the cheapest price for the patching of the lounge carpet to repair the ink stains. The landlord confirmed that the work had not been completed and the property had been re-let.

The landlord’s photographic evidence establishes that the stains occurred during the tenancy. However, the landlord has not established actual loss. The damage is not significant and does not significantly detract from the value of the carpet in this rental property which looks several years old, although no evidence of its age was presented to the Tribunal.

On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the landlord has suffered sufficient loss to justify an award of compensation. The landlord’s claim for damage to the carpet is dismissed. Filing fee

Because The Property Managers Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303824 — net $3,736.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5227432 dated 18/07/2025	$2,101.29	Previous order application 5227432 dated 18/07/2025
Cleaning: general	$395.00	4. The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave all the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Cleaning: drapes and carpet	$962.25	4. The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave all the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Repairs: kitchen cabinet	$250.00	Repairs: kitchen cabinet
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,736.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,736.54

Order

Shona Piri must pay The Property Managers Limited $3,736.54 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Previous order application 5227432 dated 18/07/2025 $2,101.29 Cleaning: general$395.00 Cleaning: drapes and carpet$962.25 Repairs: kitchen cabinet$250.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$3,736.54 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,736.54

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video and telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave all the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant explained that she had recently undergone major surgery and was unable to complete the cleaning. The amount claimed is not for a full clean, just a limited clean of specific areas and is fair and reasonable based on invoices for similar work which the Tribunal regularly sees.
The landlord claimed that the premises had an overpowering smell of tobacco smoking residue. The landlord had issued the tenant with a 14-day notice requiring her to stop from smoking inside the premises. The tenant gave evidence that she only smoked outside the front door and did not smoke in the premises. She accepted that smoke could drift inside from the open front door where she smoked. She noted that for a period the premises were occupied by another person and that she may have smoked inside.
As discussed at the hearing, the tenant is responsible for the actions in the premises of anyone who she has allowed inside. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that it is more likely than not that the tenant through smoking in the doorway, or by her guest smoking, contaminated the premises with tobacco smoke that required the cleaning of the carpets and drapes. The removal of those odours was required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A large portion of a kitchen cabinet door had delaminated. b. There was one large blue stain on the carpet and two smaller stains.
The tenant denied responsibility for the cabinet damage and claimed that it was in that condition at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord provided photographic evidence from an inspection report at the start of the tenancy showing that the cabinet door had not delaminated.
An inspection report during the tenancy was unclear as to the state of the cabinet but showed a hot water jug situated on the edge of the bench above the cabinet door.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the cabinet was damaged during the tenancy and that the damage was caused carelessly. The tenant is therefore liable for the insurance excess of the landlord as shown in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord provided an estimate of the cheapest price for the patching of the lounge carpet to repair the ink stains. The landlord confirmed that the work had not been completed and the property had been re-let.
The landlord’s photographic evidence establishes that the stains occurred during the tenancy. However, the landlord has not established actual loss. The damage is not significant and does not significantly detract from the value of the carpet in this rental property which looks several years old, although no evidence of its age was presented to the Tribunal.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the landlord has suffered sufficient loss to justify an award of compensation. The landlord’s claim for damage to the carpet is dismissed. Filing fee
Because The Property Managers Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303824 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 43 Woodward Road, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303824 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 43 Woodward Road, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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