What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5082729 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 5082729?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Door: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5082729?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5082729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641389-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5082729 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 5082729?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Door: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5082729?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5082729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11641389-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

8A Opoia Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5082729 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5082729 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Door	$300.00	emises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenants are ordered to pay $300.00 in compensation.
Cleaning	$300.00	emises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenants are ordered to pay $300.00 in compensation.
Net award	$600.00
Bond	$1,401.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$600.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5082729 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Door	$300.00	emises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenants are ordered to pay $300.00 in compensation.
Cleaning	$300.00	emises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenants are ordered to pay $300.00 in compensation.
Net award	$600.00
Bond	$1,401.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$600.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names.
[The tenant/s] to pay Quality Rental Management Limited Acting Agent For B & H Housing Ltd $600.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,401.60 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Quality Rental Management Limited Acting Agent For B & H Housing Ltd: $600.00 [The tenant/s]: $801.60
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 24 March 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 7 April 2021 and ended on 11 October 2024.
The tenants seek release of the remaining bond held by the Bond Centre ($1,401.60) and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to walls, a damaged door, cleaning, release of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “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 more likely. 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.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The bond is money paid to the landlord by the tenants. Until such time as the landlord is able to prove that some or all of the bond should be paid to them, it remains the tenant’s money. The burden of proof is therefore on the landlord to prove its claims to the civil standard, of the balance of the probabilities.
During the course of the hearing, it became apparent that the current property manager was at something of a disadvantage, as he had not been the property manager at the commencement of the tenancy. His evidence relating to the earlier period of the tenancy was dependent on documentation retained by the landlord that had been prepared by the previous property manager. The previous property manager was not called by the landlord nor was any written statement provided.

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. The landlord is insured. The landlords policy of insurance has an excess of $650.00 on each and every claim. The landlord’s claims in this matter all fall below the excess on the policy and accordingly the insurance cover is not relevant to this claim.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Wall damage
The landlord provided photos taken at the end of the tenancy in support of this application. The photos are of what is referred to as “bedroom 4”. The photos show a bedroom with a number of marks, dents and scrapes on the walls. The landlord provided a quote for repairs to that room of $345.00. The work has subsequently been carried out at the price shown in the quote. I accept that the invoice price is reasonable to complete the repairs to the walls in the bedroom.
I must first consider whether the landlord has proven that the damage has occurred during the course of the tenancy and if so, whether the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord provided a copy of a pre tenancy inspection report. The report is detailed. The report refers to bedroom 4. The report states “2 x rips 100 x20mm &10 x 15 mm....minor scuffing.”
The tenants’ evidence was that the damage claimed for by the landlord was pre-existing damage at the commencement of the tenancy. They said that the property had been in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy. The property manager who completed the pre tenancy report had told them that she would only include the major items in the report, as there were simply too many to note every item of damage. The pre tenancy inspection report indicates that there were many areas of damage at the commencement of the tenancy throughout the premises.
The burden of proving that the damage was caused during the tenancy is on the landlord. I have a conflict of evidence between the parties. I have the oral evidence of the tenants and the content of the report. The report writer was not available to give evidence. A written report can be considered in evidence, but must carry less weight as the report writer was not available to be cross examined. When that evidence is weighed, I am not persuaded that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused by the tenants during the tenancy and the claim is dismissed. Door
The landlord say that a door was damaged. The landlord provided a quote for the replacement of the door. The quote was for $554.30. The landlord said that the work had not been carried out as yet, as the contractor had a substantial backlog of orders. The landlord said that the previous door was approximately 6 years old. The landlord says there the door damaged was the door for bedroom 1. The pre tenancy inspection report refers to there being “2 dents/ holes door” in the door to bedroom 1. The report refers to there being a “handle missing cupboard” in bedroom 2.
The tenants’ evidence was that the damaged door referred to by the landlord was for bedroom 2 and not bedroom 1. The tenants accepted that the door to bedroom 2 did have some damage where a door stop has caused a hole. The tenants said that both bedroom doors were damaged before the commencement of the tenancy. The pre tenancy report does not refer to there being damage to the door in bedroom 2. It refers to there being a “handle missing cupboard”.
Having reviewed the evidence, I accept that the damage to the door was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord said that the door was approximately 6 years old. 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 door was in poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy . The tenants are ordered to pay compensation of $300.00.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).
The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning for $475.30. The landlord said that this was the only cleaning that had been carried out between the end of this tenancy and the commencement of a further tenancy. The landlord said that the cleaning was simply was to bring the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The landlord said that the pre tenancy inspection made it clear that the premises were “worn” but not unclean at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants say that the previous tenants only moved out on the day that they moved into the premises. The previous tenants did not carry out any cleaning. The house was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition when they moved in. The tenants say that they had inspection reports approximately every three months during the course of the tenancy and that the condition of the premises had never been raised by the landlord previously. The tenants say that they cleaned the premises before they moved out and premises were much cleaner at the end of the tenancy than they had been at the time they moved in.
The tenants say that they spoke to the property manager after they had left the premises at the end of the tenancy. The property manager explained to them that further cleaning was required. The tenants said that they were not allowed back into the premises to complete the cleaning. There is no obligation on a landlord to allow tenants to return to premises after the expiry of the tenancy.
I have reviewed the photographs provided by the landlord. In considering the issue I have taken into account that the premises were in a worn condition at the commencement of the tenancy. I consider that some further cleaning was required of the tenants at the end of the tenancy to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenants are ordered to pay $300.00 in compensation.
Both parties have achieved a degree of success in those circumstances I make no order for the reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants applied for name suppression. The tenants have been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the tenants names and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5082729 — Cleanliness at 8A Opoia Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5082729 — Cleanliness at 8A Opoia Road, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions