What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4982608 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4982608?

Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $314.08 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $549.24 awarded to landlord; Paint Off Blinds: $598.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $99.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4982608?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4982608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11898574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4982608 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4982608?

Cleaning: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $314.08 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $549.24 awarded to landlord; Paint Off Blinds: $598.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $99.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4982608?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4982608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11898574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4982608 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4982608 — net $1,657.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 August 2024	$314.08	Rent arrears to 3 August 2024
Water rates to 3 August 2024	$99.86	Water rates to 3 August 2024
Cleaning: Kitchen blind stain	$69.00	Cleaning: Kitchen blind stain
Repairs: Concrete paint damage	$549.24	Repairs: Concrete paint damage
Repairs: Paint off blinds	$598.00	Repairs: Paint off blinds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,657.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,657.18

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,657.18 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended together with support from an advocate.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants dispute some of the landlord’s claims and have also made a cross application seeking exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 3 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing of $314.08 for rent and $99.86 for water usage at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants did not dispute these amounts at the hearing.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
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. Driveway
The landlord claims for damage caused to the concrete driveway.
They say that a portion of the driveway was painted over and as they did not know what it was painted with or what it was painting over, they had to engage a contractor to dissolve the paint at the invoiced cost of $549.24. Photographs have been provided in support of their claim. The landlord says that this could have been avoided had the tenant advised the product used to paint the driveway.
The tenants say that initially they caused accidental damage to the driveway and that they did their best to remedy the issue by painting over it with driveway paint. They say that no issues were raised by the property manager during the handover period.
I find that although the initial spill may have been accidental, the tenant was required to and failed to advise the landlord at the time. See section 40(1)(d) of the RTA.
The painting over the driveway was, however, intentional, and accordingly I find that the tenant is liable for this damage.
The amount ordered is proved. Blinds
The landlord claims that the wooden slat blinds were stained during the tenancy. The amounts claimed are $69.00 for cleaning the blind and $598.00 to paint over the staining after cleaning was unable to remove the stains. A photograph of the staining has been provided in support.
It is not clear how this staining was caused; however, it appears from the photographs likely that something splashed or spilled on the blinds that has left a yellowish residue.
It is more likely than not that this was caused during the tenancy and although I cannot be sure how, I consider it reasonable that it was likely caused carelessly, and possibly through a failure to wipe a spill immediately which may have exacerbated the staining.
The amount ordered is proved.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: concrete driveway and staining to blinds. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant’s claims
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached their rights to quiet enjoyment of the property and has harassed them. They say that they were good tenants, who kept the property tidy and left it clean and the landlord made unreasonable and unjust requests for damages after they vacated the property. This included: a. Receiving a letter for trivial issues (small marks to be wiped and a smoke alarm placed on the bench). b. Having four property viewings over a short period, intruding on the tenants’ privacy. c. Being blamed for normal wear and tear issues, like minor marks on the walls, and dust on light fittings. d. Paying for professional cleaning, but still having minor cleaning issues raised. e. Continued requests for additional cleaning and repairs, disproportionate to the excellent condition the property was left in. f. Escalating matters unnecessarily (for example, issuing 14-day notices for rent arrears).
All these served to place undue pressure on the tenant, making them feel scrutinised. The tenants say these actions combined breached section 38(2) of the RTA.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I have reviewed all the correspondence and documentation provided, including correspondence relating to the vacated cleaning, inspections towards the end of the tenancy, and 14-day notices.
I am satisfied that the 14-day notices for rent arrears and smoke alarms were justified, and the property manager was required to issue these. Although I have no doubt that the inspections were an inconvenience and created difficulties for the tenants, the correspondence shows that the landlord did try and work in with the tenants.
With respect to the cleaning, although I can see that the property was left in a good condition, and the tenants felt that they were being targeted, I do not find that the correspondence in respect of these additional cleaning requests reach the threshold of being an unlawful act.
I find that the landlord has not reached the level of harassment and therefore has not committed an unlawful act.
This claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties sought name suppression, and I have granted this to both parties. The landlord has been wholly successful and is entitled to name suppression. Tenants should not be discouraged from questioning the extent of their liability in the circumstances, through fear of being named and in my view, the public can obtain any benefit from the decision without the tenants being named. R Harvey-Lane 27 May 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4982608 — net $1,657.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 August 2024	$314.08	Rent arrears to 3 August 2024
Water rates to 3 August 2024	$99.86	Water rates to 3 August 2024
Cleaning: Kitchen blind stain	$69.00	Cleaning: Kitchen blind stain
Repairs: Concrete paint damage	$549.24	Repairs: Concrete paint damage
Repairs: Paint off blinds	$598.00	Repairs: Paint off blinds
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,657.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,657.18

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,657.18 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended together with support from an advocate.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants dispute some of the landlord’s claims and have also made a cross application seeking exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 3 August 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing of $314.08 for rent and $99.86 for water usage at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants did not dispute these amounts at the hearing.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
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. Driveway
The landlord claims for damage caused to the concrete driveway.
They say that a portion of the driveway was painted over and as they did not know what it was painted with or what it was painting over, they had to engage a contractor to dissolve the paint at the invoiced cost of $549.24. Photographs have been provided in support of their claim. The landlord says that this could have been avoided had the tenant advised the product used to paint the driveway.
The tenants say that initially they caused accidental damage to the driveway and that they did their best to remedy the issue by painting over it with driveway paint. They say that no issues were raised by the property manager during the handover period.
I find that although the initial spill may have been accidental, the tenant was required to and failed to advise the landlord at the time. See section 40(1)(d) of the RTA.
The painting over the driveway was, however, intentional, and accordingly I find that the tenant is liable for this damage.
The amount ordered is proved. Blinds
The landlord claims that the wooden slat blinds were stained during the tenancy. The amounts claimed are $69.00 for cleaning the blind and $598.00 to paint over the staining after cleaning was unable to remove the stains. A photograph of the staining has been provided in support.
It is not clear how this staining was caused; however, it appears from the photographs likely that something splashed or spilled on the blinds that has left a yellowish residue.
It is more likely than not that this was caused during the tenancy and although I cannot be sure how, I consider it reasonable that it was likely caused carelessly, and possibly through a failure to wipe a spill immediately which may have exacerbated the staining.
The amount ordered is proved.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: concrete driveway and staining to blinds. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenant’s claims
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has breached their rights to quiet enjoyment of the property and has harassed them. They say that they were good tenants, who kept the property tidy and left it clean and the landlord made unreasonable and unjust requests for damages after they vacated the property. This included: a. Receiving a letter for trivial issues (small marks to be wiped and a smoke alarm placed on the bench). b. Having four property viewings over a short period, intruding on the tenants’ privacy. c. Being blamed for normal wear and tear issues, like minor marks on the walls, and dust on light fittings. d. Paying for professional cleaning, but still having minor cleaning issues raised. e. Continued requests for additional cleaning and repairs, disproportionate to the excellent condition the property was left in. f. Escalating matters unnecessarily (for example, issuing 14-day notices for rent arrears).
All these served to place undue pressure on the tenant, making them feel scrutinised. The tenants say these actions combined breached section 38(2) of the RTA.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
I have reviewed all the correspondence and documentation provided, including correspondence relating to the vacated cleaning, inspections towards the end of the tenancy, and 14-day notices.
I am satisfied that the 14-day notices for rent arrears and smoke alarms were justified, and the property manager was required to issue these. Although I have no doubt that the inspections were an inconvenience and created difficulties for the tenants, the correspondence shows that the landlord did try and work in with the tenants.
With respect to the cleaning, although I can see that the property was left in a good condition, and the tenants felt that they were being targeted, I do not find that the correspondence in respect of these additional cleaning requests reach the threshold of being an unlawful act.
I find that the landlord has not reached the level of harassment and therefore has not committed an unlawful act.
This claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties sought name suppression, and I have granted this to both parties. The landlord has been wholly successful and is entitled to name suppression. Tenants should not be discouraged from questioning the extent of their liability in the circumstances, through fear of being named and in my view, the public can obtain any benefit from the decision without the tenants being named. R Harvey-Lane 27 May 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 4982608 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4982608 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions