What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5361825?

The tribunal order states: Huy Duong to pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited $558.06 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5361825?

Cleaning: $480.06 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361825?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361825?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13006906-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5361825?

The tribunal order states: Huy Duong to pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited $558.06 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5361825?

Cleaning: $480.06 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361825?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361825?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13006906-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room A, Unit/Flat Apartment 929, 21 Whitaker Place, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361825 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361825 — net $558.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$480.06	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$558.06
Bond	$760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$558.06

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning $97.75 and reimbursement of an invoice for re keying the property, $480.06 along with the filing fee.

This was a room-by-room residential tenancy. That is one where the tenant rents their own room, which they have exclusive possession of, and they share facilities with the other occupants of the other rooms in the apartment/ house. There are three rooms in this apartment, that share kitchen, bathroom and lounge rooms but have exclusive access to their own rooms.

The tenancy ended on 19 June 2025 after the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy. The tenant says that he had already left the tenancy in late May. On the 9 th June he advised the landlord that he had left the property and left the key at the property. The landlord conducted a final inspection of the property the following day on the 10 June 2025. Cleaning.

Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. (see s40(1)(e)(iii) RTA). The landlord says that when he completed an inspection, that the tenant had not wiped down surfaces and had not vacuumed the floor. The landlord seeks reimbursement of an invoice of $97.65 because he had to pay a cleaner to vacuum the room and wipe down the surfaces and furniture.

The tenant disputes that he did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. He says that flakes on the floor are from peeling paint from water damage, that likely happened after he had left the premises. He says that as instructed, he left his door unlocked, and therefore any of the other occupants or their visitors could have gone into the room after he left.

He also says that he vacuumed and wiped the surfaces.

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant did not leave the room reasonably clean. I consider that in this instance the room should have been vacuumed and surfaces wiped. I prefer the evidence of the landlord that this had not been done, because photographs of the property show some small debris on the floor (not just peeling paint) and dust and dirt on the window sill and the desk.

I consider that it more than likely that the way the tenant left it was the same or similar condition to how the landlord inspected it on the 10 June, I say this because it was only a day after the tenant told the landlord he had left the property. The landlord did not delay carrying out an inspection. There is no evidence of anyone else going into the room.

I do not consider the amount sought by the landlord reasonable for the work to be done. The room is small and the work is only likely to have taken half an hour at the most. I understand that the landlord would have had to engage someone to do that work, but I consider the amount of $50.00 is what is required to remedy the breach. I award that amount. Keys.

The tenant lost his keys on or about the 20 December 2024, he asked the landlord to let him in. Due to the time of year the landlord could not get a locksmith. The tenant paid for a locksmith to let him into the property. In January the tenant wrote to the landlord advising him he still did not have the locks changed. The landlord got the locks changed and charged the tenant.

The tenant disputes liability for the cost of changing the locks. He says that he had already paid to have someone let him into the premises.

I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the costs of the replacement keys. It was the tenant losing his keys that necessitated a lock change.

I consider that the costs are reasonable for the work done and the tenant is liable for the costs. Filing fee.

As the landlord has been successful in their claim, I award the landlord the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361825 — net $558.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$480.06	Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$558.06
Bond	$760.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$558.06

Order

Huy Duong to pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited $558.06 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $760.00 (6082622-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Viaduct City Rentals Limited: $558.06 Huy Duong: $201.94

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning $97.75 and reimbursement of an invoice for re keying the property, $480.06 along with the filing fee.
This was a room-by-room residential tenancy. That is one where the tenant rents their own room, which they have exclusive possession of, and they share facilities with the other occupants of the other rooms in the apartment/ house. There are three rooms in this apartment, that share kitchen, bathroom and lounge rooms but have exclusive access to their own rooms.
The tenancy ended on 19 June 2025 after the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy. The tenant says that he had already left the tenancy in late May. On the 9 th June he advised the landlord that he had left the property and left the key at the property. The landlord conducted a final inspection of the property the following day on the 10 June 2025. Cleaning.
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. (see s40(1)(e)(iii) RTA). The landlord says that when he completed an inspection, that the tenant had not wiped down surfaces and had not vacuumed the floor. The landlord seeks reimbursement of an invoice of $97.65 because he had to pay a cleaner to vacuum the room and wipe down the surfaces and furniture.
The tenant disputes that he did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy. He says that flakes on the floor are from peeling paint from water damage, that likely happened after he had left the premises. He says that as instructed, he left his door unlocked, and therefore any of the other occupants or their visitors could have gone into the room after he left.
He also says that he vacuumed and wiped the surfaces.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant did not leave the room reasonably clean. I consider that in this instance the room should have been vacuumed and surfaces wiped. I prefer the evidence of the landlord that this had not been done, because photographs of the property show some small debris on the floor (not just peeling paint) and dust and dirt on the window sill and the desk.
I consider that it more than likely that the way the tenant left it was the same or similar condition to how the landlord inspected it on the 10 June, I say this because it was only a day after the tenant told the landlord he had left the property. The landlord did not delay carrying out an inspection. There is no evidence of anyone else going into the room.
I do not consider the amount sought by the landlord reasonable for the work to be done. The room is small and the work is only likely to have taken half an hour at the most. I understand that the landlord would have had to engage someone to do that work, but I consider the amount of $50.00 is what is required to remedy the breach. I award that amount. Keys.
The tenant lost his keys on or about the 20 December 2024, he asked the landlord to let him in. Due to the time of year the landlord could not get a locksmith. The tenant paid for a locksmith to let him into the property. In January the tenant wrote to the landlord advising him he still did not have the locks changed. The landlord got the locks changed and charged the tenant.
The tenant disputes liability for the cost of changing the locks. He says that he had already paid to have someone let him into the premises.
I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the costs of the replacement keys. It was the tenant losing his keys that necessitated a lock change.
I consider that the costs are reasonable for the work done and the tenant is liable for the costs. Filing fee.
As the landlord has been successful in their claim, I award the landlord the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361825 — Cleanliness at Room A, Unit/Flat Apartment 929, 21 Whitaker Place,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361825 — Cleanliness at Room A, Unit/Flat Apartment 929, 21 Whitaker Place,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions