Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5415390 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 52 Fruitvale Road, New Lynn, Auckland
Decided 8 May 2026 · Published 8 May 2026 · Application 5415390
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
K Koller
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $382.29
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $382.29
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent for 19 and 20 November 2025 | $154.29 | Rent for 19 and 20 November 2025 | |
| Cleaning | $200.00 | Cleaning | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $382.29 | ||
| Bond | $655.61 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $382.29 |
Claims and awards for application 5415390 — net $382.29 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent for 19 and 20 November 2025
- Amount
- $154.29
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent for 19 and 20 November 2025
Cleaning
- Amount
- $200.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $382.29
Bond
Landlord $655.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $382.29
Dismissed claims
- Other Claims — All other claims dismissed
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Rubaiya Zannat Sabah and Sadia Shormi to pay Yellow Group Property Management Limited As Agent For Mitchell Roberts & Pehiman Rakena $382.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $655.61 (6082932-018) immediately apportioned as follows: Yellow Group Property Management Limited As Agent For Mitchell Roberts & Pehiman Rakena: $382.29 Rubaiya Zannat Sabah and Sadia Shormi: $273.32
- All other claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
How much is owed for rent and water rates?
- The tenants provided a copy of their messages to the property manager about their last day of the tenancy. They said:
- The landlord concluded from this that the last day of the tenancy would be 20 November 2025. At the hearing the tenants said they moved out on 19 November and did not think they should have to pay for the last two days, because one week from 12 November would have made 18 November the last day.
- I have considered the evidence and the submissions. I find the tenancy ended on 20 November 2025 because it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that would be the last day. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
- There is a small claim for water rates but there was no reading done on the last day of the tenancy. The landlord submitted that I should apportion the water rates and take into account that the house was empty until after the water meter was read in December. I am not persuaded by this submission. There is no way of knowing how much water was used by the cleaner or anyone else at the premises after the tenancy ended. This claim is dismissed.
Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- There is a claim for cleaning and carpet cleaning. Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
- In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
- The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
- This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord provided me with photos taken at the end of the tenancy and photos taken at the start of the tenancy as a comparison. I was also provided with an invoice. The landlord has only claimed some of the cleaning cost from the tenants.
- The tenants submitted that the carpets were stained and in a poor condition at the start of the tenancy. They also said the photos of the toilet from when they moved in show it was left in a reasonable condition at the end. They did agree that the blinds and some areas in the house were not left in a reasonable condition, however they said they offered to go back and do extra cleaning and the landlord should have allowed this.
- I have considered the landlord’s photos and the submissions. I find the carpet was in a poor condition at the start of the tenancy so any claim for cleaning the carpet at the end should be paid for by the landlord as part of its maintenance obligations. The photos of the toilet room look the same at the end of the tenancy as they did at the start of the tenancy, so I find this was left in a reasonable condition. The landlord has proved the roller blinds, some of the walls, some of the skirtings, and some of the kitchen all needed additional cleaning to reach a reasonable condition. There is no requirement under the RTA for the landlord to give tenants a second go at cleaning. I have allowed an amount that seems fair to me. Other orders
- A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
- Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5415390?
The tribunal order states: Rubaiya Zannat Sabah and Sadia Shormi to pay Yellow Group Property
How much money was awarded in case 5415390?
Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent For 19 And 20 November 2025: $154.29 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415390?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415390?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13570653-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.