Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5434306 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 2, 63 Clifton Drive, Waitara, Waitara 4320
Published 2 April 2026 · Application 5434306
Landlord favoured
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Waitara
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Kemp
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $50.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $50.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carpet Cleaning | $50.00 | Carpet Cleaning | |
| Net award | $50.00 | ||
| Bond | $1,840.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $50.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5434306 — net $50.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Carpet Cleaning
- Amount
- $50.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Carpet Cleaning
Net award
Landlord $50.00
Bond
Landlord $1,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $50.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Maureen Ann Ward to pay Robyn Wickenden $50.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (BN-00170797) immediately apportioned as follows: Robyn Wickenden: $50.00 Maureen Ann Ward: $1,790.00
- The tenant’s application is dismissed.
- The landlord’s application for compensation for damage and general cleaning (save for carpet cleaning) is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had a support person.
- The landlord claims compensation for cleaning costs and damage.
- The tenant claims compensation for a notice to end the tenancy that she says is retaliatory, a breach of her quiet enjoyment and the fact she says the tenancy agreement meant she had to pay rent too soon. Civil burden of proof
- The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. It is the applicant that must prove their case.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Tenant application
Was the notice given to end the tenancy retaliatory?
- Section 51(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice.
- For such a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA.
- A notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. For example, in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988, Judge Ongley upheld the Tribunal’s decision that the notice was not retaliatory. Judge Ongley stated he was: ... quite satisfied that Mrs Woodman acted reasonably on the basis of the information known to her. She found that Mr Kerr was not a suitable tenant for those flats because he could not tolerate activities by other tenants which Mrs Woodman believed were unavoidable. She believed that she was faced with the alternatives of either having continuous disputes among tenants, or otherwise bringing Mr Kerr’s tenancy to an end. I am not called upon to decide whether the complaints were justified, only to decide whether Mrs Woodman gave notice in retaliation or for genuine and fair reasons.
- Section 54(2) also provides some protection to a landlord. It provides that the Tribunal may decline to declare the notice retaliatory if it finds that the tenant’s action “was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving the notice”.
- The tenant says that a 90-day notice provided by the landlord terminating her tenancy dated 10 November 2025 is retaliatory. Once she got this notice the tenant left the premises on 17 December 2025.
- The tenant says that the landlord served the notice on her after she had gone around to the landlord’s house on 6 November 2025 to let her know that she was going to be slightly short with the rent that week. According to the tenancy agreement rent was due on that day. In fact, after the discussion the tenant did pay her rent on time that day.
- The tenant says she is not sure, but she thinks that the landlord gave her notice because she was upset that the tenant had come to her house and knocked on the landlord’s door to explain about the fact she was struggling with rent and that the tenant had been emotional in her response and had been upset about not being able to pay rent. The tenant says she apologised to the landlord when the parties met up a few days later but the landlord gave her the notice to end the tenancy anyway, despite the tenant not being given a chance to put things right.
- The landlord says that she had concerns about how the tenant was treating the property this is why she gave notice. She says as far as she knew rent was not even due on 6 October 2025. She says she told the tenant it was not a problem because as far as she was aware the tenant had paid her two weeks rent in advance to the agent who had set up the tenancy and rent was not due that day.
- I have considered the position carefully and conclude the tenant has not proven that this notice is retaliatory. The tenant says that the landlord issued the termination notice because of her coming to the landlord’s property telling her she was struggling to pay rent and because of her emotions.
- I consider that the tenant has not identified a “right, power, authority or remedy under the tenancy agreement that she was asserting to the landlord for the purposes of section 54 RTA.
- Notices of termination are not retaliatory where they are not motivated by the tenant’s assertion of rights but instead are motivated by other factors such as, a) the tenant’s behaviour (for example if the landlord was motivated by the tenant’s heightened emotions or coming to her door) or b) the tenant’s activity at the property (for example, how the landlord might view the tenant is treating the property) or c) if the tenant is in breach of an obligation (if for example the tenant was due to pay rent).
- This part of the application is therefore dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
- Section 38 RTA provides the tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord.
- The tenant says that the landlord contacted the tenant’s sister in a letter to be a witness to the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy. A copy of the brief letter requesting this was provided. The tenant says this is in breach of her right to quiet enjoyment.
- I dismiss this part of the application because the parties agree the contact was made by the landlord after the tenancy had ended.
- I consider that section 38 RTA no longer continues to apply after the tenant’s entitlement to have use of the premises has ended (see the District Court decision in Sibilis v Croft and Byrt [2023] NZDC 26882 where it was held no award of exemplary damages could be made for a breach of quiet enjoyment once the tenancy has ended).
- The tenant mentioned going to the Privacy Commissioner. Claims under the Privacy Act 2020 fall outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
- This part of the application is therefore dismissed.
Was the landlord in breach by requiring rent to be paid on 6 November 2025?
- The tenant says that the tenancy agreement should not have required rent to be paid on 6 November 2025 as she had paid two weeks rent to the landlord’s agents prior to moving in on 30 October 2025.
- The tenant says that she should not have had to pay rent until this period was expired. The landlord restated her position that she was not under the impression the tenant had to pay rent on this date.
- The tenancy agreement shows that the tenancy started on 30 October 2025. The weekly rent is $460 per week. The tenancy agreement does not appear to expressly set out rent frequency. The tenant had to pay two week’s rent in advance to the agent, but the tenancy agreement shows the tenant then had to pay the weekly rent again on 6 November 2025. The tenancy agreement sets this out as follows (extracts so far as relevant):
- Section 23 RTA provides: “(1) A landlord shall not require the payment of any rent (a) more than 2 weeks in advance; or (b) before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already”.
- Having considered this carefully I find that while this does not require the tenant to pay more than two weeks rent in advance (because a week of the rent has been used before a further payment is required) it does require the tenant to pay rent before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already.
- I therefore find that the landlord is in breach of section 23(1)(b) RTA. The correct approach would be that the next rent payment would be due after the initial two-week rent period ended (i.e. on 13 November 2025).
- The tenant seeks compensation.
- A breach of the RTA alone does not entitle a tenant to compensation. Compensation requires evidence of actual loss, causation, and reasonable mitigation. No information was provided to show any financial loss arising from this breach. There is no suggestion that the tenant overpaid rent overall. Despite the content of the tenancy agreement, I accept that the landlord was not in fact expecting payment that week. Both parties referred to the landlord saying, prior to the payment being made by the tenant, that the tenant could pay the following week. This was said when the tenant went to go and see the landlord about her difficulties in paying. The tenant could have also mitigated her loss by taking the approach put forward by the landlord. I therefore dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation for loss arising out of this breach.
- I now turn to the landlord’s claims. Landlord application Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy in relation to cleaning?
- 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) RTA .
- The landlord says the property required additional cleaning both generally and to the carpet.
- I have carefully considered the evidence presented by the parties.
- In relation to the general cleaning the landlord’s photographs show areas where some small attention is needed. For example, some small food scraps in the bottom of the dishwasher and some crumbs in the oven drawer, a drip on the oven door, a dribble of liquid on the side of the dishwasher (when it is pulled out) and some bits on the floor between the oven and a cabinet when the oven is pulled out of place. The landlord referred there to be being a hair on the basin. The landlord says she personally spent 1 or 2 days cleaning the property. The landlord seeks $100 for this cleaning.
- There is also a separate claim for cleaning the carpets for $200. The landlord identified part of the lounge carpet that she said needed cleaning and two spots on a bedroom carpet.
- I heard from a witness who gave evidence for the landlord who says he saw the property near to the start of the tenancy and went back after it had ended. He referred to the dribble on the dishwasher, the oven needing a wipe under the elements and the carpets needing to be vacuumed.
- The tenant gave a detailed breakdown of what cleaning she had done and provided a set of more general photographs. These give more of an overview of the property than the landlord’s photographs. The landlord challenged the date of these photographs but the tenant showed the photographs with time stamps on her telephone which were consistent with the end of the tenancy and I have no reason to doubt their veracity. The tenant says she did not see any stains on the carpet.
- Just because a property has some areas that may need a further clean that does not mean it is not reasonably clean and tidy. The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition - only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceilings, lightshades or behind appliances. It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to this "extra" level so that they can re-tenant or sell. However, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. What is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented) and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
- I dismiss the claim for $100 for general cleaning. Save for the finding below in relation to the lounge carpet, I find that the landlord’s evidence has not established that the property was overall not left reasonably clean and tidy. The evidence did not suggest that anything other than a wipe down of a few areas was needed. The landlord may have wanted the property immaculate or left exactly how it was when the tenant moved in, but this is not the statutory test.
- Turning to the carpet cleaning I am satisfied that there was a light mark left in the lounge and I am satisfied that this occurred during the course of the tenancy because photographs show this. The tenant referred to vacuuming but sometimes more than vacuuming will be is needed. I accept that this mark means that the carpet in the lounge was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
- The landlord says the tenant also left other stains, but the landlord was only able to show two further marks in a bedroom. I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that there were marks beyond that pictured. I am not satisfied that the landlord has sufficiently proven that those marks were not on the carpet at the start of the tenancy. There is no sufficient probative evidence of the condition of the bedroom carpet at the start of the tenancy. For example, there is no condition report for the property at the start of the tenancy or photographs of this area.
- I acknowledge that while a witness gave evidence about the property being well presented at the start of the tenancy the carpet was not new and small marks (and sometimes even larger ones) can be missed by casual observers (and even landlords themselves) at the start of a tenancy.
- The landlord had the floors across the whole property cleaned (as shown by the invoice provided). The tenant is not liable for this full sum. I award the landlord $50 for the cost of cleaning the lounge carpet which is the area proven to not be reasonably clean and tidy. I note that even if the marks in the bedroom were proven as a tenant liability, I would have only awarded a small sum for spot cleaning.
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 landlord says that the tenant damaged the garage door by leaving items close to the roller door causing it to jam. A technician had to be called out. The landlord says it was the tenant’s fault due to the items causing the door to catch. The tenant says that while a box had slipped the maintenance person who came said that it was a maintenance issue due to the age of the door.
- I heard how the landlord and the tenant previously agreed the tenant would pay $70 as a contribution to this call out fee and that this has been paid. The landlord now seeks $75 being the remaining amount of the call out fee.
- Given the parties have already settled this claim between them I decline to make an additional award in respect of the cost involved in remedying the garage door. I see no reason to set the agreement that was already made between the parties aside.
- This claim is dismissed. The bond
- The landlord is awarded $50 from the bond to account for the part of the carpet cleaning claim that has been proven. The tenant will receive the remainder.
- The parties should contact the Bond Centre to arrange for their portion to be sent to them. Suppression and the filing fee
- The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case (s95A RTA).
- Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claims. Given the outcomes of the claims for both parties I decline to award either party suppression of their identifying details.
- Given the landlord’s limited success I decline to award reimbursement of the filing fee. There is also no basis on which to award the tenant her filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s23, s23(1), s38, s40(1), s40(2), s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s51(1), s54, s54(1), s54(2), s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5434306?
The tribunal order states: Maureen Ann Ward to pay Robyn Wickenden $50.00 from the bond, calculated
How much money was awarded in case 5434306?
Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434306?
The primary dispute was Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434306?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13303790-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.