What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4980649 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $7955.27 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4980649?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Deducted Payments Made By Tenant: $1,100.00 awarded to tenant; Pest Control: $727.50 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4980649 D…: $1,270.09 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $537.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Replacing Carpet: $3,570.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4980649?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4980649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12681181-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4980649 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $7955.27 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4980649?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Deducted Payments Made By Tenant: $1,100.00 awarded to tenant; Pest Control: $727.50 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4980649 D…: $1,270.09 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $537.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Replacing Carpet: $3,570.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4980649?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4980649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12681181-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 The Knoll, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4980649 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4980649 — net $7,955.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4980649 dated 16/04/2025	$1,270.09		Previous order application 4980649 dated 16/04/2025
Cleaning: 1/2 costs	$450.00		Cleaning: 1/2 costs
Pest control	$727.50		Pest control
Kiwi Vac repair	$537.68		Kiwi Vac repair
Replacing carpet	$3,570.00		Replacing carpet
Insurance excesses x 3	$3,000.00		Insurance excesses x 3
Rent arrears refund		$500.00	Rent arrears refund
Deducted payments made by tenant		$1,100.00	Deducted payments made by tenant
Total award	$9,555.27	$1,600.00
Net award	$7,955.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,955.27

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $7955.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
I have dismissed the landlord’s claim for the ceiling cleaning.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
I issued an order on 2 October 2025 after a hearing for these claims. The landlord filed a rehearing application solely of a miscalculation I had made with the carpet award. The rehearing was set down for 7 November 2025.
After hearing from both parties, I agreed that I had made a miscalculation and that I would immediately send an amended order through to the parties.
This is that amended order.
There have been several previous hearings relating to the landlord’s application. This is the final hearing of this claim, which is to deal with vacated costs.
The landlord seeks to claims: a. 3 x $1000.00 insurance excess costs for insurance claims made regarding damage to the property at the end of the tenancy. b. Remedial work not covered by the insurance claims such as replacing carpet, flee treatment and repairs to Kiwivac system. c. Cleaning the interior of the house and the ceilings. d. The landlord seeks to include $1270.09 for the unpaid portion of a previous order of the Tribunal dated 23 January 2025 and 16 April 2025.
The bond has now been fully refunded to the landlord for rent arrears and the filing fee.
The landlord is entitled to include the unpaid previous portion of the Tribunal order issued in January 2025 and I include that amount in this order.
I note that the landlord has included two deductions to be made in the favour of the tenant: -$500.00 refund for rent the Landlord received from his Insurance company. The Tribunal had made an award to the landlord for $500.00 for rent arrears on 16 April 2025. -The Tenant had been making $50.00 per week payments to the Landlord for rent arrears and damages she accepted. The Tenant at the time of the hearing on 8 August 2025 had made $1100.00. -The landlord accepted that the order must take the $1600.00 for the awarded given to the landlord.
There remaining claims are the vacated costs which I deal with below.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. 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. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof” .Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
A tenant is not expected to leave the premises clean to a state where a new tenancy can commence.
I have reduced the cleaning invoice by 50%. The photos produced in evidence show that the tenant left the premises generally reasonably clean. Cleaning to the extent detailed was not a full tenant responsibility. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning at the end of a tenancy.
The cleaning invoice charges for the high vaulted ceiling is not a tenant responsibility. It would require specialised equipment to enable the tenant to clean the ceilings, which is outside what would be expected in a tenancy. The “dirt” complained of is not related to poor housekeeping on behalf of the tenant but fly marks and spider webs.
The landlord was required to have pest control attend the property due to a flee infection. The tenant agrees that she had a cat and kittens at the property.
The amounts ordered for the pest control, and half the cleaning costs are proved.
I am dismissing the claim for cleaning the vaulted ceiling.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Upstairs and lounge carpet had cat urine and faeces on it. -The Kiwivac system was broken -Holes and damage to the walls and doors throughout the house.
The landlord provided invoices, insurance documents accepting the claims for malicious damage to parts of the house and photos of the damage.
The landlord filed three claims for damage to the carpet, internal walls, and doors. Th documents and photos show that there had been 11 internal doors smashed, and 5 separate areas of gib-board punched in.
I find the landlord has proven their claim for the insurance excesses.
The other damages claim relate to the central vacuum system that was used without a bag, damaging the system. This has happened during the term of the tenancy. The landlord provided photos of the rubbish inside the vacuum system without a bag to collect the rubbish in. The invoice for $537.68 describes the repairs was for the purpose of cleaning out the system that was blocked with rubbish and debris.
I am satisfied that landlord has proven their claim for the kiwi-vac system.
The landlord is seeking to claim the cost of replacing the remaining carpet that was not part of the insurance claim.
The landlord relies on the reports from the carpet company of overwhelming stench of urine throughout the carpeted area. The landlord seeks the sum of $8860.00 for the replacement of the carpet.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach.
Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord advised the Tribunal that they built the house in 1986 and there have been several refurbishments over the years since then. However, the carpet was replaced in 2017.
The landlord has claimed the full cost of replacing the carpets, soiled by cat urine. The total cost is $8860.00 to replace the carpet. I accept that there was urine damage found on those carpets.
The carpet in these premises was at least 7 years old at the end of the tenancy. The landlord cannot expect to receive the cost of full carpet replacement even when the carpets are in good condition. Wear and tear, and age, must be considered.
I have depreciated the claim for carpet replacement by 55% to reflect the age of the carpets. This means that the tenant’s overall liability is $3750.00.
The filing fee and bond have already been refunded to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4980649 — net $7,955.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Previous order application 4980649 dated 16/04/2025	$1,270.09		Previous order application 4980649 dated 16/04/2025
Cleaning: 1/2 costs	$450.00		Cleaning: 1/2 costs
Pest control	$727.50		Pest control
Kiwi Vac repair	$537.68		Kiwi Vac repair
Replacing carpet	$3,570.00		Replacing carpet
Insurance excesses x 3	$3,000.00		Insurance excesses x 3
Rent arrears refund		$500.00	Rent arrears refund
Deducted payments made by tenant		$1,100.00	Deducted payments made by tenant
Total award	$9,555.27	$1,600.00
Net award	$7,955.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,955.27

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $7955.27 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
I have dismissed the landlord’s claim for the ceiling cleaning.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
I issued an order on 2 October 2025 after a hearing for these claims. The landlord filed a rehearing application solely of a miscalculation I had made with the carpet award. The rehearing was set down for 7 November 2025.
After hearing from both parties, I agreed that I had made a miscalculation and that I would immediately send an amended order through to the parties.
This is that amended order.
There have been several previous hearings relating to the landlord’s application. This is the final hearing of this claim, which is to deal with vacated costs.
The landlord seeks to claims: a. 3 x $1000.00 insurance excess costs for insurance claims made regarding damage to the property at the end of the tenancy. b. Remedial work not covered by the insurance claims such as replacing carpet, flee treatment and repairs to Kiwivac system. c. Cleaning the interior of the house and the ceilings. d. The landlord seeks to include $1270.09 for the unpaid portion of a previous order of the Tribunal dated 23 January 2025 and 16 April 2025.
The bond has now been fully refunded to the landlord for rent arrears and the filing fee.
The landlord is entitled to include the unpaid previous portion of the Tribunal order issued in January 2025 and I include that amount in this order.
I note that the landlord has included two deductions to be made in the favour of the tenant: -$500.00 refund for rent the Landlord received from his Insurance company. The Tribunal had made an award to the landlord for $500.00 for rent arrears on 16 April 2025. -The Tenant had been making $50.00 per week payments to the Landlord for rent arrears and damages she accepted. The Tenant at the time of the hearing on 8 August 2025 had made $1100.00. -The landlord accepted that the order must take the $1600.00 for the awarded given to the landlord.
There remaining claims are the vacated costs which I deal with below.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. 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. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof” .Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
A tenant is not expected to leave the premises clean to a state where a new tenancy can commence.
I have reduced the cleaning invoice by 50%. The photos produced in evidence show that the tenant left the premises generally reasonably clean. Cleaning to the extent detailed was not a full tenant responsibility. Landlords must expect to have to do some cleaning at the end of a tenancy.
The cleaning invoice charges for the high vaulted ceiling is not a tenant responsibility. It would require specialised equipment to enable the tenant to clean the ceilings, which is outside what would be expected in a tenancy. The “dirt” complained of is not related to poor housekeeping on behalf of the tenant but fly marks and spider webs.
The landlord was required to have pest control attend the property due to a flee infection. The tenant agrees that she had a cat and kittens at the property.
The amounts ordered for the pest control, and half the cleaning costs are proved.
I am dismissing the claim for cleaning the vaulted ceiling.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Upstairs and lounge carpet had cat urine and faeces on it. -The Kiwivac system was broken -Holes and damage to the walls and doors throughout the house.
The landlord provided invoices, insurance documents accepting the claims for malicious damage to parts of the house and photos of the damage.
The landlord filed three claims for damage to the carpet, internal walls, and doors. Th documents and photos show that there had been 11 internal doors smashed, and 5 separate areas of gib-board punched in.
I find the landlord has proven their claim for the insurance excesses.
The other damages claim relate to the central vacuum system that was used without a bag, damaging the system. This has happened during the term of the tenancy. The landlord provided photos of the rubbish inside the vacuum system without a bag to collect the rubbish in. The invoice for $537.68 describes the repairs was for the purpose of cleaning out the system that was blocked with rubbish and debris.
I am satisfied that landlord has proven their claim for the kiwi-vac system.
The landlord is seeking to claim the cost of replacing the remaining carpet that was not part of the insurance claim.
The landlord relies on the reports from the carpet company of overwhelming stench of urine throughout the carpeted area. The landlord seeks the sum of $8860.00 for the replacement of the carpet.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach.
Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord advised the Tribunal that they built the house in 1986 and there have been several refurbishments over the years since then. However, the carpet was replaced in 2017.
The landlord has claimed the full cost of replacing the carpets, soiled by cat urine. The total cost is $8860.00 to replace the carpet. I accept that there was urine damage found on those carpets.
The carpet in these premises was at least 7 years old at the end of the tenancy. The landlord cannot expect to receive the cost of full carpet replacement even when the carpets are in good condition. Wear and tear, and age, must be considered.
I have depreciated the claim for carpet replacement by 55% to reflect the age of the carpets. This means that the tenant’s overall liability is $3750.00.
The filing fee and bond have already been refunded to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4980649 — Property damage at 1 The Knoll, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4980649 — Property damage at 1 The Knoll, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions