What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5326020?

The tribunal order states: Benafsha Hajati must pay Aileen Rose Arroyo and Joenilo Arroyo $217.11

How much money was awarded in case 5326020?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $49.99 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Fixed Water Charges: $567.10 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326020?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13128825-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5326020?

The tribunal order states: Benafsha Hajati must pay Aileen Rose Arroyo and Joenilo Arroyo $217.11

How much money was awarded in case 5326020?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $49.99 awarded to landlord; Reimbursement Of Fixed Water Charges: $567.10 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326020?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326020?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13128825-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12A William Roberts Road, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5326020 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5326020 — net $217.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Replacement shelf	$49.99		Replacement shelf
Reimbursement of fixed water charges		$567.10	Reimbursement of fixed water charges
Total award	$349.99	$567.10
Net award		$217.11
Bond		$2,480.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$217.11

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5326020 — net $217.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Replacement shelf	$49.99		Replacement shelf
Reimbursement of fixed water charges		$567.10	Reimbursement of fixed water charges
Total award	$349.99	$567.10
Net award		$217.11
Bond		$2,480.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$217.11

Order

Benafsha Hajati must pay Aileen Rose Arroyo and Joenilo Arroyo $217.11 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (6109806-013) to Aileen Rose Arroyo and Joenilo Arroyo immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 February 2026. The landlord, who is overseas, attended by telephone.
The landlord was given until 20 February 2026 to provide further submissions. The tenant was given until 2 March 2026 for a final right of reply. The further written submissions have been reviewed. Background
The landlord applied to the Tribunal on 13 August 2025 for compensation and refund of the bond.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 3 November 2025 for refund of the bond, compensation, and exemplary damages.
The tenant signed a residential tenancy agreement with the previous owner of the premises for a fixed-term tenancy from 9 November 2020 to 9 October 2021. The weekly rent was $620.00 and a bond of $2,480.00 was paid and lodged at the Bond Centre.
The tenancy agreement included a “Healthy Homes Statement” and information about insulation, smoke alarms, and insurance.
The current landlord bought the property on or about 17 July 2023. Landlord’s Application Cleaning
The landlord explained, in written submissions, that the premises were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. There were dusty surfaces in wardrobes and cupboards, cobwebs, a poorly cleaned and mouldy dishwasher, hair in the shower drain, and the windows and ranch-slider glass were not cleaned.
The tenant said that the premises were left above the required standard for cleanliness, although there were a few minor areas that may have been overlooked: “...dust on shelves, a cobweb on the alarm, shower waste not cleaned and leaves, and dried weeds outside not disposed of.” The tenant said she would agree to pay $50.00 for cleaning and the claimed amount ($640.55) was excessive.
The quote provided by the landlord included $249.00 plus GST for inside and outside window cleaning. It also itemised cleaning to the sliding door, oven, dishwasher, and rangehood. The total estimated cost was $640.55. The landlord advised that, in the event, a family member had spent 9 hours cleaning the premises.
Comparing the ingoing inspection photographs (dated 6 November 2020) and the exit inspection photographs, the front door and immediate surrounds of the oven look as clean at the end of the tenancy as at the beginning. There are other exit photographs from further inside the oven showing greasy marks, which would indicate there was some cleaning required. However, I note the tenant’s point that the ingoing photographs do not show far inside the oven. Its overall condition at the start of the tenancy is difficult to assess.
I consider the dishwasher was in a reasonably clean condition when the tenancy ended. The rangehood is not shown in the ingoing report, and the tenant said it was already brown and oily. Replacement filters provided by the landlord did not fit. The rangehood looks greasy in the exit photographs. It is reasonable to assume it would have required some cleaning after a five-year tenancy. I also consider that the shelves in the kitchen needed to be wiped down so that they met the reasonably clean standard required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
As to the windows, the Act states that the premises must be left reasonably clean. This applies to the windows and ranch-slider glass as much as the rest of the premises. Inaccessible exterior windows (for example, on an upper storey) might be categorised as part of the landlord’s maintenance obligation, but this property was on a single level. I consider that the tenant was responsible for keeping the windows reasonably clean.
After considering all the evidence, I award $300.00 for cleaning. It is likely that some cleaning to the oven, rangehood, cupboards and windows was required at the end of the tenancy. Damage
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 and 41 of the Act).
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 landlord claimed the insurance excess of $400.00 for damage to the kitchen benchtop. The landlord said it had been damaged by rings (I infer from hot pots and pans) and these were not present at the ingoing inspection. The rings are visible in the landlord’s photographs.
The tenant did not accept that the damage was done after the current owner became the landlord and said it might have been there when they moved in. The tenant submitted that the ingoing inspection photographs show different things at different angles and the advertising photographs could not be relied on. The tenant said the photograph they took on vacating did not show damage to the benchtop and they did not recall causing the damage.
The ingoing photographs do not show any damage to the benchtop, but equally the photograph provided by the tenant when they left does not do so either. The tenant may be right that the marks are less visible from some angles or in certain light conditions. This part of the application is difficult, but ultimately, I am not satisfied that the benchtop was damaged during the tenancy. It is possible that the damage was pre-existing but did not show up in the ingoing photographs.
The landlord was invited to provide the insurance assessor’s report to support the cost of repair or replacement, but this was not produced. Therefore, if I am wrong and the benchtop was damaged by the tenant, it has not been established that the benchtop had to be replaced or could not be repaired for less than the excess. I also note the tenant’s concern that the benchtop may not have been repaired.
The landlord claimed $400.00 (the insurance excess) for water damage to the bathroom sink. The landlord said the damage got worse because they were not notified of the problem by the tenant. The landlord submitted that the changes to the condition of the vanity in the exit inspection report compared to the ongoing report could only have occurred due to carelessness.
The tenant said the vanity was at least five years old and most likely the original vanity, making it approximately 18 years old. The tenant submitted that the move-in photographs showed signs of water damage and said the black line on the edges of the shelves showed there was water damage to begin with.
The ingoing inspection report does refer to a “small hairline crack” in the bathroom sink which is visible in the photographs. The photographs may show the beginnings of swelling from water damage. This has progressed during the tenancy and, given the crack, could have been due to normal use. I am not satisfied that the tenant carelessly damaged the bathroom cabinet.
The landlord claimed $59.80 for a broken shower drain cover. The tenant said that this was made of plastic and had to be pulled out regularly for cleaning. Further, people would stand on it and over time, the plastic becomes brittle and it would not be unusual or it to chip and break. I find that this was not carelessly or intentionally caused damage.
The landlord claimed $49.99 for a missing kitchen shelf. The tenant acknowledged that she took the shelf out and misplaced it. I am not persuaded by the tenant’s submission that this damage occurred prior to the landlord becoming the owner; it was damage caused during the tenancy and the tenant is liable. I award the amount claimed.
The landlord claimed $8.89 for replacement light bulbs. The tenant said that multiple lights were not working when they moved in, as recorded in the ingoing inspection. The ingoing inspection report does refer to lights in various rooms not working. Tenants are not liable to improve the condition of premises, and that would include lights and light fittings that were broken or missing at the start of the tenancy. Loss of Rent
The landlord claimed four weeks’ loss of rent on the basis that the tenant “disrupted” the bond refund, and the landlord had to deal with insurers about the damage. The landlord said the premises could not be advertised because of the damage. Although it was three months before the landlord found a new tenant, the landlord was only claiming a month’s rent.
I note that the tenant applied to the Bond Centre for refund of the bond. The tenant had a right to do so and this alone does not justify any award.
This was a periodic tenancy which came to an end amicably when the tenant found somewhere else to live. The landlord acknowledged that she did not have a tenant ready to move in. I also consider the tenant’s submission, that the landlord could expect some downtime between tenancies due to the need for maintenance after five years, is pertinent. Finally, I would query whether any of the damage prevented re-letting. I decline to award loss of rent as damages. Tenant’s Application Water Charges
The tenant claimed reimbursement of $1,173.69 for water charges, on the basis that this represented fixed charges she was not liable to pay.
Pursuant to section 39 of the Act, tenants are liable for their use of power and water. They are not liable for charges which are payable whether or not they are in occupation, for example, insurance or the local rates.
The tenant paid fixed charges of $606.59 to the previous owner. I do not see how these fixed charges can be recovered from the current landlord. That would be to hold the landlord accountable for something they did not do and for moneys they did not receive.
The tenant paid fixed charges of $567.10 to the current landlord. The landlord said the tenant had agreed to pay these charges in an email. However, the parties were unable to contract out of the Act, and the tenant could not waive her rights (section 11 of the Act). The tenant was not liable for these charges, which are payable whether or not the premises are occupied and is entitled to be reimbursed. Contents of Tenancy Agreement
The tenant said that the previous owner had included only limited insurance information in the tenancy agreement. The new landlord ought to have updated this when they purchased the premises. The tenant complained that the landlord did not provide a Healthy Homes Statement until after the Tribunal application was filed. A healthy homes assessment ought to have been carried out. Finally, the tenant submitted that the tenancy agreement did not include the correct information about insulation.
The tenancy agreement was required to provide information about the location, type and condition of the insulation. In a broad sense the tenancy agreement did so. However, the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 required further information, such as the insulation’s R-value. This was not provided.
The tenancy agreement was also required to include information about the insurance of the premises, including the details of each excess relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction or damage to the premises and informing the tenant that they could request a copy of the policy. The tenancy agreement stated that there was insurance with an excess of $400.00.
The tenancy agreement included information about the smoke alarms at the premises. I have been unable to find any requirement for information about smoke alarms to be included in tenancy agreements. In this respect the tenancy agreement appears to go beyond what was required.
The tenant found it difficult to explain what, if any, disadvantage she had suffered by reason of the landlord’s failure to include all required information on these aspects of the Healthy Homes Standards. It is not evident that the tenant raised any concerns during the tenancy. The tenancy agreement did refer to there being insurance and to the insurance excess, and if the tenant wanted to see the insurance policy (in the context of the water damage in the bathroom or the benchtop, for example) this could have been requested.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has suffered any loss because she was not informed of the insulation’s R-value. A Healthy Homes Assessment report obtained on or about 11 September 2025 confirmed that the premises had compliant ceiling insulation (there was no requirement for underfloor insulation) with an R-value of 2.9.
The Healthy Homes Standards applied to the premises 90 days after the tenancy was renewed. I do not consider that the tenancy was “renewed” when it continued on a periodic basis from 10 October 2021. Even if that is incorrect, the evidence does not show that the premises were non-compliant at that time.
I decline to award compensatory or exemplary damages. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs.
The parties requested suppression. Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful as required by section 95A of the Act. I therefore decline suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326020 — Cleanliness at 12A William Roberts Road, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326020 — Cleanliness at 12A William Roberts Road, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions