Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5373286 — Cleanliness at 6 Marybank Mews, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412
Published 21 January 2026 · Application 5373286
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Palmerston North
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
T Harris
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $70.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $70.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | $70.00 | Cleaning | |
| Net award | $70.00 | ||
| Bond | $2,000.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $70.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5373286 — net $70.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Cleaning
- Amount
- $70.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Net award
Landlord $70.00
Bond
Landlord $2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $70.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Jamila Bi Binti Samia and Katiza Binti Abdul Shukur to pay Reh Property Management Limited Richard Bellinger $70.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (BN-17114648)) immediately apportioned as follows: Reh Property Management Limited Richard Bellinger: $70.00 Jamila Bi Binti Samia and Katiza Binti Abdul Shukur: $1,930.00
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The property manager Mr Bellinger appeared by video and the tenants, and interpreter Mr Saw, attended by telephone.
- The landlord has applied for compensation and partial refund of the bond 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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- An invoice was provided from a cleaning company ‘Busy Bee Cleaning’ for carpet shampoo, lawns, gardens and spraying. The property manager was unable to provide enough evidence to establish that these areas required any cleaning or that the tenant should be liable for any of the costs claimed. There was no evidence provided to support any of the amounts claimed for and the claims are dismissed.
- The landlord did provide photographs of some dirty cupboard drawers, oven elements and hand marks on wardrobe doors. No cleaning invoice was provided. A nominal amount is awarded because the landlord has not established the cleaning costs. I award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations by not leaving these areas reasonably clean.
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.
- The landlord provided a second invoice from the property owners for painting repairs and cleaning of gutters and footpaths.
- The landlord provided photos from the exit inspection held by him and separate photos from the property owner which showed some wall damages. Some of this was noted as pre-existing damage.
- Due to the inadequate photographs, especially those contained in the ingoing tenancy report, the landlord was unable to establish that the damages claimed occurred during the tenancy and were more than fair wear and tear.
- These claims are dismissed.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s21, s40(1), s40(2)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
- REH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5373286?
The tribunal order states: Jamila Bi Binti Samia and Katiza Binti Abdul Shukur to pay Reh Property
How much money was awarded in case 5373286?
Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5373286?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5373286?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13004278-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.