What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5089568 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 5089568?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $88.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $792.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $72.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11584738-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5089568 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 5089568?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $88.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $792.86 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $72.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5089568?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5089568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11584738-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5089568 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089568 — net $971.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 07 September 2024	$792.86	Rent arrears to 07 September 2024
Rubbish removal	$72.50	Rubbish removal
Carpet cleaning	$100.00	2024. The rent summary provided shows that the tenant made their last rent payment on 20 August 2024, missing the next two weeks plus one day.
Lock/key replacement	$88.64	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$1,000.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$971.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$971.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kayla J Simm must pay [The landlord/s] $971.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,110.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 11 November 2023 and was periodic. On 09 August 2024, the tenant gave twenty-eight days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. On 06 September 2024, the tenant filed a claim with the Tribunal. On 29 September 2024, the claim was scheduled for hearing on 04 December 2024. On 02 December 2024, the landlord filed a counterclaim. The hearing originally scheduled for 04 December 2024 was later rescheduled to 17 March 2025.
Details of the hearing were sent to the parties at their respective addresses for service, as provided in their applications. [ The landlord] appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
There has been no explanation for the tenant’s non-attendance and no request for an adjournment. Accordingly, the tenant’s claims are dismissed. Landlord’s claims
The landlord’s claims are that the tenant. i. Owes rent arrears to 07 September 2024 ($792.86), ii. Is responsible for damage to interior walls throughout the property ($4,000.00) iii. Failed to leave the oven reasonably clean and failed to remove all rubbish ($72.50), iv. Failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean ($1,500.00), v. Installed a combination lock on a bedroom door without permission ($88.64),
In brackets next to the claims is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Rent arrears.
On 09 August 2024, the tenant gave twenty-eight days’ notice. The landlord states that the tenant vacated the property on 07 September 2024. The rent summary provided shows that the tenant made their last rent payment on 20 August 2024, missing the next two weeks plus one day. The claim is proven, and the amount claimed is awarded. Cleaning / rubbish removal/ lock reinstatement
The landlord claims the tenant failed to leave the oven reasonably clean and remove all rubbish. Additionally, that the tenant installed a keypad combination lock to one of the bedroom doors, which had to be removed and replaced with a standard handle.
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) of the Act.
The Act 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, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Decision
The claim for cleaning the oven is dismissed. There is no pre tenancy checklist, or other evidence showing the cleanliness of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence to prove the claim.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the council provided bins, general waste, and recycling, both full of general rubbish. I am satisfied that this rubbish belonged to the tenant.
The landlord states that during the tenancy the tenant made several unauthorised alterations to the property, including installing a keypad combination lock to their bedroom door. The landlord states that the tenant offered to provide the combination but failed to do so before the lock had to be replaced. I award the landlord $72.50 to remove the rubbish and $88.64 to replace the lock.
I considered awarding additional compensation for labour costs, although no time keeping records have been produced. Law – damage
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
If this is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they or someone at the property with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
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.
Tenants are liable for the full 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and occurred after 27 August 2019, 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).
In addressing carelessness, the question is whether the tenant, or person at the property with their permission, exercised a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective, not based on the subjective opinions of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating any depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Interior walls and the carpet
The landlord claims that the tenant made several unauthorised alterations to the property, including repainting of interior walls which were originally a light-yellow colour to grey. Then again shortly before the end of the tenancy, and in order to reinstate the property, using a brighter lemon yellow. The bathroom / toilet / laundry, originally light yellow, was painted an off white and then lemon yellow.
The property is a two-bedroom unit in a block of ten, built in the 1970’s. The photographs produced show that the property retains most of its original fixtures and fittings. The landlord cannot confirm when the property was last redecorated, although they had replaced the carpet in 2022. There was a tenancy prior to this one. There is no pre tenancy checklist.
There are limited photographs showing the walls at the commencement of the tenancy. Those produced show only a portion of wall and curtain. However, the landlord has also produced photographs showing evidence of painting, including paint marks on the carpet, aluminium joinery, and windows, a photograph of shelves installed by the tenant showing masking tape, paint containers in the garden, and grey paint brush strokes visible on the ceilings near the walls.
The landlord has produced a text message from the tenant on or about 28 August 2024, confirming that the tenant had made some alterations, and that they intended to reinstate the property. Although, the message does not specifically mention repainting the walls.
Based on the available evidence, including the oral evidence of the landlord, I am satisfied that more likely than not the tenant has painted and then repainted the walls during the tenancy. In my view doing so without permission of the landlord constitutes intentional damage, which is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord states that had the tenant left the walls grey, they might have been acceptable, however painting over the grey with a bright lemon yellow had left blotchy and patchy areas.
The landlord repainted the walls and the ceilings themselves. However, no invoices or time records have been produced. The landlord’s claim for $4,000.00 is based on a quote they obtained in 2023 for just over $7,000.00 to repaint the interior of another unit in the block, which had been smoke damaged.
The landlord states that the paint on the walls was in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy. Although they accepted there was no evidence on which to make an objective assessment.
The paint on walls in residential rental properties has an average expected lifespan of around 10 – 14 years. The paint on the walls at the property is likely older than 14 years. Considering betterment, I reduce the claim and award the landlord $1,000.00, which is reasonable in the circumstances.
Regarding the carpet, the landlord has produced photographs of the carpet taken at the end of the tenancy showing two paint marks near the wall. Despite claiming for carpet replacement, it has not been replaced. The landlord has attempted to remove the marks themselves using a carpet cleaning machine.
While I am satisfied that the tenant is more likely than not responsible for the marks, based on the evidence I am not satisfied that it has resulted in any significant loss to the landlord. Accordingly, I award the landlord $100.00 to remove the marks. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord seeks name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5089568 — net $971.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 07 September 2024	$792.86	Rent arrears to 07 September 2024
Rubbish removal	$72.50	Rubbish removal
Carpet cleaning	$100.00	2024. The rent summary provided shows that the tenant made their last rent payment on 20 August 2024, missing the next two weeks plus one day.
Lock/key replacement	$88.64	Lock/key replacement
Repairs	$1,000.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$971.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$971.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kayla J Simm must pay [The landlord/s] $971.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,110.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 11 November 2023 and was periodic. On 09 August 2024, the tenant gave twenty-eight days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. On 06 September 2024, the tenant filed a claim with the Tribunal. On 29 September 2024, the claim was scheduled for hearing on 04 December 2024. On 02 December 2024, the landlord filed a counterclaim. The hearing originally scheduled for 04 December 2024 was later rescheduled to 17 March 2025.
Details of the hearing were sent to the parties at their respective addresses for service, as provided in their applications. [ The landlord] appeared. There was no appearance by the tenant.
There has been no explanation for the tenant’s non-attendance and no request for an adjournment. Accordingly, the tenant’s claims are dismissed. Landlord’s claims
The landlord’s claims are that the tenant. i. Owes rent arrears to 07 September 2024 ($792.86), ii. Is responsible for damage to interior walls throughout the property ($4,000.00) iii. Failed to leave the oven reasonably clean and failed to remove all rubbish ($72.50), iv. Failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean ($1,500.00), v. Installed a combination lock on a bedroom door without permission ($88.64),
In brackets next to the claims is the compensation sought.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Rent arrears.
On 09 August 2024, the tenant gave twenty-eight days’ notice. The landlord states that the tenant vacated the property on 07 September 2024. The rent summary provided shows that the tenant made their last rent payment on 20 August 2024, missing the next two weeks plus one day. The claim is proven, and the amount claimed is awarded. Cleaning / rubbish removal/ lock reinstatement
The landlord claims the tenant failed to leave the oven reasonably clean and remove all rubbish. Additionally, that the tenant installed a keypad combination lock to one of the bedroom doors, which had to be removed and replaced with a standard handle.
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) of the Act.
The Act 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, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs. Decision
The claim for cleaning the oven is dismissed. There is no pre tenancy checklist, or other evidence showing the cleanliness of the property at the commencement of the tenancy. There is insufficient evidence to prove the claim.
The photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show the council provided bins, general waste, and recycling, both full of general rubbish. I am satisfied that this rubbish belonged to the tenant.
The landlord states that during the tenancy the tenant made several unauthorised alterations to the property, including installing a keypad combination lock to their bedroom door. The landlord states that the tenant offered to provide the combination but failed to do so before the lock had to be replaced. I award the landlord $72.50 to remove the rubbish and $88.64 to replace the lock.
I considered awarding additional compensation for labour costs, although no time keeping records have been produced. Law – damage
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
If this is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they or someone at the property with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
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.
Tenants are liable for the full 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and occurred after 27 August 2019, 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).
In addressing carelessness, the question is whether the tenant, or person at the property with their permission, exercised a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective, not based on the subjective opinions of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating any depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Interior walls and the carpet
The landlord claims that the tenant made several unauthorised alterations to the property, including repainting of interior walls which were originally a light-yellow colour to grey. Then again shortly before the end of the tenancy, and in order to reinstate the property, using a brighter lemon yellow. The bathroom / toilet / laundry, originally light yellow, was painted an off white and then lemon yellow.
The property is a two-bedroom unit in a block of ten, built in the 1970’s. The photographs produced show that the property retains most of its original fixtures and fittings. The landlord cannot confirm when the property was last redecorated, although they had replaced the carpet in 2022. There was a tenancy prior to this one. There is no pre tenancy checklist.
There are limited photographs showing the walls at the commencement of the tenancy. Those produced show only a portion of wall and curtain. However, the landlord has also produced photographs showing evidence of painting, including paint marks on the carpet, aluminium joinery, and windows, a photograph of shelves installed by the tenant showing masking tape, paint containers in the garden, and grey paint brush strokes visible on the ceilings near the walls.
The landlord has produced a text message from the tenant on or about 28 August 2024, confirming that the tenant had made some alterations, and that they intended to reinstate the property. Although, the message does not specifically mention repainting the walls.
Based on the available evidence, including the oral evidence of the landlord, I am satisfied that more likely than not the tenant has painted and then repainted the walls during the tenancy. In my view doing so without permission of the landlord constitutes intentional damage, which is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord states that had the tenant left the walls grey, they might have been acceptable, however painting over the grey with a bright lemon yellow had left blotchy and patchy areas.
The landlord repainted the walls and the ceilings themselves. However, no invoices or time records have been produced. The landlord’s claim for $4,000.00 is based on a quote they obtained in 2023 for just over $7,000.00 to repaint the interior of another unit in the block, which had been smoke damaged.
The landlord states that the paint on the walls was in a reasonable condition at the commencement of the tenancy. Although they accepted there was no evidence on which to make an objective assessment.
The paint on walls in residential rental properties has an average expected lifespan of around 10 – 14 years. The paint on the walls at the property is likely older than 14 years. Considering betterment, I reduce the claim and award the landlord $1,000.00, which is reasonable in the circumstances.
Regarding the carpet, the landlord has produced photographs of the carpet taken at the end of the tenancy showing two paint marks near the wall. Despite claiming for carpet replacement, it has not been replaced. The landlord has attempted to remove the marks themselves using a carpet cleaning machine.
While I am satisfied that the tenant is more likely than not responsible for the marks, based on the evidence I am not satisfied that it has resulted in any significant loss to the landlord. Accordingly, I award the landlord $100.00 to remove the marks. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord seeks name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089568 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5089568 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions